(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Education of historians in the United States"

THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS 



IN THE UNITED STATES 



UNIVERSITY 
OF FLORIDA 
LIBRARIES 




COLLEGE LIBRARY 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/educationofhistOOperk 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS 
IN THE UNITED STATES 



THE CARNEGIE SERIES IN AMERICAN EDUCATION 

The books in this series have resulted from studies supported by grants 
of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, and are published by McGraw- 
Hill in recognition of their importance to the future of American educa- 
tion. 

The Corporation, a philanthropic foundation established in 1911 by 
Andrew Carnegie for the advancement and diffusion of knowledge and 
understanding, has a continuing interest in the improvement of American 
education. It financed the studies in this series to provide facts and rec- 
ommendations which would be useful to all those who make or influence 
the decisions which shape American educational policies and institutions. 

The statements made and views expressed in these books are solely the 
responsibility of the authors. 

Books Published 

Berelson • Graduate Education in the United States 

Clark • The Open Door College: A Case Study 

Cleveland • The Overseas American 

Conant • The American High School Today 

Corson • Governance of Colleges and Universities 

Glenny • Autonomy of Public Colleges 

Henninger • The Technical Institute in America 

McConnell • A General Pattern for American Public Higher Education 

Medsker • The Junior College: Progress and Prospect 

Perkins and Snell • The Education of Historians in the United States 

Pierson • The Education of American Businessmen 

Thomas • The Search for a Common Learning: General Education, 

1800-1960 
Weidner • The World Role of Universities 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS 
IN THE UNITED STATES 



DEXTER PERKINS, Chairman 
JOHN L. SNELL, Director 

and 

Committee on Graduate Education of the 

American Historical Association 

Jacques Barzun, Fred Harvey Harrington, Edward C. Kirkland, 

Leonard Krieger, and Boyd C. Shaf er 



McGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY, INC. 1962 
New York San Francisco Toronto London 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

Copyright © 1962 by the McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. Printed 
in the United States of America. All rights reserved. This book, or 
parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without permission 
of the publishers. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 61-16529 



49300 




The authors acknowledge with thanks permission to quote from the following publi- 
cations: to AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION, publisher of Theodore C. Blegen 
and Russell M. Cooper (eds.), The Preparation of College Teachers (1950); to McGRAW- 
HILL BOOK COMPANY, INC., publisher of Bernard Berelson, Graduate Education in tht 
United States (i960); to UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA PRESS, publisher of 
Hayward Keniston, Graduate Study and Research in the Arts and Sciences at the University 
of Pennsylvania (1959). 



FOREWORD 



This book, it is hoped, will be one of a series on the historical 
profession. Discussions concerning this study of the graduate edu- 
cation of historians began during the winter of 1956-1957, follow- 
ing the Presidential Address of Professor Dexter Perkins in St. 
Louis at the annual meeting of the American Historical Association. 
The association, with funds from the Carnegie Corporation of New 
York, sponsored the study through its Committee on Graduate 
Education composed of Dexter Perkins, chairman, Jacques Barzun, 
Fred Harvey Harrington, Edward C. Kirkland, Leonard Krieger, 
and Boyd C. Shafer. In September, 1958, with a generous grant of 
leave from Tulane University, Professor John L. Snell became 
director of the study. With the committee's counsel and following 
its general plan, he collected most of the materials for this book 
through hundreds of questionnaires, dozens of visits to universities, 
interviews with both teachers and students, and other intensive 
research. Professor Snell wrote Chapters 2 to 9, Professor Perkins 
wrote Chapter 1, and Chapter 10 contains the Recommendations 
of the Committee. 
Washington, D.C. 

Boyd C. Shafer 

Executive Secretary 

American Historical Association 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
AND SOURCES 



This study has been conducted under the auspices of the Ameri- 
can Historical Association, and has been made possible by a gener- 
ous grant from the Carnegie Corporation. The author of Chapters 
2 to 9, Professor Snell, is grateful to Tulane University for granting 
him a leave of absence for his work as director of the study. He is 
also indebted to Mrs. Virginia Ktsanes, Mrs. Kenneth Vines, Mrs. 
Charles P. Roland, and Robert Mitchell for assistance in the tabu- 
lation and analysis of data from questionnaires; to Mrs. James B. 
Kemp for typing the final manuscript; to Maxine Pybas Snell for 
her unstinting work as his secretary; and to members of the com- 
mittee who gave encouragement, stylistic help, good advice, and 
freedom to complete the assignment they gave him in 1958: to 
discover and describe — as objectively as possible — practices and 
problems in graduate training in history and suggestions for their 
improvement. 

All members of the committee wish to express their thanks to 
the historians who filled out questionnaires, answered letters, and 
granted more than two hundred interviews during the course of 
this study. 

A special word of thanks should be offered here to Joe Spaeth 
of the National Opinion Research Center for a report on graduate 
students in history, based upon a larger study of graduate students 



Vlll ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND SOURCES 

undertaken by the NORC; to John K. Folger and Kenneth M. 
Wilson of the Southern Regional Education Board for data on 
recent Ph.D.s in history; to John L. Chase of the Office of Educa- 
tion, who provided useful data on fellowships for graduate study; 
to Paul M. Allen, who made available drafts of a study of graduate 
education prepared for the American Association of Colleges for 
Teacher Education; and to Bernard Berelson for advice and data 
from his own more general study of graduate education. 

The footnotes to Chapters 2 to 9 provide an extended bibliogra- 
phy of the studies by others that were used in preparing this study. 
There would be little advantage in repeating here the references 
that each chapter contains. The major sources for the information 
presented in Chapters 2 to 9 — usually without footnotes — are the 
questionnaires and interviews noted in the appendixes. 



CONTENTS 



Foreword v 

Acknowledgments and Sources vii 

1. INTRODUCTION: AS SEEN BY THE CHAIRMAN 1 

2. DO WE NEED MORE COLLEGE TEACHERS? 15 

The Growth of Doctoral Training in History. Future Need for Ph.D.s in 
History. Variations in Supply and Demand. Summary. 

3. GRADUATE STUDENTS IN HISTORY 37 

Ability and Preparation. Academic and Social Origins. Financing Graduate 
Study. Career Plans. Recruiting. Summary. 

4. HISTORY IN THE COLLEGES 62 

The Importance of Teaching Ability. Scholarly Qualifications of Teachers. 
"Working Conditions. What History Is Taught? Methods of Teaching. History 
Majors. Summary. 

5. THE MASTER'S DEGREE 87 

Admission, Screening, and Basic Requirements. The Master's Thesis. Other 
Variations. The Uses of the Master's Degree. Proposed Reforms: For Secondary 
School Teachers. Proposed Reforms: For College Teachers. Summary. 

6. PH.D.-TRAINING INSTITUTIONS 108 

Which Institutions Offer the Ph.D. in History? Faculties and Fields. Under- 
graduate Education. Teaching Conditions. Research and Teaching. Library 
Resources. Summary. 



X CONTENTS 

7. DOCTORAL STUDY IN HISTORY 141 

What Is Studied: Field Requirements. Forms of Study. Examinations. Sum- 
mary. 

8. MAJOR CRITICISMS OF PH.D. TRAINING 160 

Preparation for College Teaching. Breadth and Specialization. Training for 
Research Scholarship. Protracted Ph.D. Study. Summary. 

9. EXPERIMENTS WITH TEACHER TRAINING AND TIGHTENED 
PROGRAMS 188 

Teacher Preparation. Reducing the Ph.D. "Stretch-out." Summary. 

10. RECOMMENDATIONS 200 

Attracting and Admitting Graduate Students. Undergraduate Preparation. 
The Master's Degree. Shortening Ph.D. Training. Striking a Balance. Prepara- 
tion for Teaching. Discovering Teaching Capacity. Fostering and Rewarding 
Good Teaching. 

APPENDIXES 213 

Index 233 



TABLES 



2-1. Increase in History Doctoral Production, 1881-1952 
2-2. Recent Production of Ph.D.s in History, 1953-1960 
2-3. Recent Production of Ph.D.s in History and Comparable Disciplines, 

1953-1959 
2-4. Total Ph.D. Production in Selected Social Sciences, 1926-1957 
2-5. Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctoral Degrees in History, 1948-1959 
2-6. Predicted Quantitative Trends in Graduate Education in History, 1959- 

1970, Based upon Increases in Live Births 
2-7. Regional Variations in Production of 1,482 Ph.D.s, 195 5-1960 
2-8. Regional Distribution of Ph.D. Candidates in History in 80 Universities, 

1958-1959 
2-9. Ph.D.s in History by Geographical Areas of Specialization, 1873-1959 
2-10. Anticipated Faculty Appointments and Ph.D. Candidates in Various Fields 

of History, 1958-1959 
3-1. Inadequacies of Undergraduate Preparation for Graduate Study in History 

Reported by 182 History Ph.D.s of 1958 
3-2. Leading Baccalaureate Sources of History Ph.D.s, 1936-1956 
3-3. Social Origins of Graduate Students, 195 8-1959 
3-4. Financial Conditions of Graduate Students, 195 8-1959 
3-5. Stipends Held by Graduate Students in Selected Disciplines, 1958-1959 
3-6. Career Aims of 2,754 Graduate Students, 195 8-1959 
3-7. Persons Influencing Decision to Undertake Graduate Study in History by 

182 Recent Ph.D.s 
4-1. Good and Poor Teachers: Appraisals by 182 Recent History Ph.D.s 
4-2. Appointment of History Teachers with Less than the Ph.D. in 502 Col- 
leges, 195 8-1959 

xi 



Xll TABLES 

4-3. Teaching Loads of 1,007 History Teachers in 126 Better Colleges, First 

Term of 1958-1959 
4-4. Average Sizes of History Classes at Various Levels in 126 Colleges, 1956- 

1957 and 1958-1959 
4—5. Enrollment Changes in History Courses in 126 Four-year Colleges, 1948- 

1958 
4-6. Changes in History Courses Offered by 502 Four-year Colleges, 1948- 

1958 
4-7. History Courses Most Often Offered among 502 Colleges and 51 Junior 

Colleges, 1956-195 8 (2 Years) 
4-8. Variations in History Offerings by Types of Four-year Colleges (Sample 

of 376 Institutions) 
4-9. Comparison of Selected Forms of History Instruction by Types of Col- 
leges, 195 8-1959 
5-1. Thesis Requirements in Colleges and Universities Offering the Master's 

Degree in History, 1958-1959 
5-2. Relative Strength of Master's Training in 77 Universities and 87 Colleges 

1958-1959 
6-1. Growth of Doctoral Programs in History by Selected Five-year Periods, 

1881-1945 
6-2. Production of 3,133 Ph.D.s by 79 Universities Awarding the Doctorate in 

History, 1948-195 8 (11 Years) 
6-3. 41 Universities That Were First Choices for Graduate Study by One or 

More of 202 Woodrow Wilson Fellows in History, 1960, plus 15 Other 

Universities Chosen by Fellows in 1958 or 1959 
6-4. Size of History Faculties in 80 Institutions Offering the Ph.D. in History, 

1958-1959 
6-5. Scholarly Publication by 1,121 Members of Ph.D. -training History Facul- 
ties in 77 Institutions, 195 8-1959 
6-6. Foreign Travel and Study of 674 Specialists in History of Foreign Areas, 77 

Ph.D. -training Institutions, 195 8-1959 
6-7. Ph.D.s in Various Fields of History Awarded by 29 Institutions in the 

East, 195 5-1959 (5 Years) 
6-8. Ph.D.s in Various Fields of History Awarded by 17 Institutions in the 

South, 195 5-19 59 (5 Years) 
6-9. Ph.D.s in Various Fields of History Awarded by 17 Institutions in the 

Midwest, 195 5-1959 (5 Years) 
6-10. Ph.D.s in Various Fields of History Awarded by 11 Institutions in the 

West, 195 5-1959 (5 Years) 
6-11. Percentages of 77 Ph.D. -training Institutions Offering Courses in Various 

Fields of History at Three Levels 



TABLES Xlll 

6-12. Types of Courses Reported at Least Three Times as Added or Dropped, 

1948-195 8, in 77 Ph.D.-training History Departments 
6-13. Notable Enrollment Increases and Decreases, 1948-195 8, in Various Types 

of Courses in 77 Ph.D.-training History Departments 
6-14. History Majors, 1956 and 195 8, in 71 Institutions Offering Ph.D. Training 

in History 
6-15. Various Forms of History Instruction Offered by 77 Ph.D.-training In- 
stitutions, 195 8-1959 
6-16. Teaching Loads of 1,121 Members of History Faculties in 77 Ph.D.-train- 
ing Universities, First Term, 195 8-1959 
6-17. Average Sizes of History Classes at Various Levels in 77 Ph.D.-training 

Institutions, 19 56-1957 and 19 5 8-19 59 
6-18. Factors Reported by History Ph.D.s of 195 8 as Causes of Neglect of Ph.D. 

Candidates by Graduate Faculty 
6-19. Strength of Library Resources of 8 5 Universities Offering Ph.D. Training 
in History, 1960 
7-1. Number of Books Recent History Ph.D.s Believe They "Were Expected to 

Read in Various Fields of History 
7-2. Average Lengths of Doctoral Dissertations of 1957-195 8 in Various Disci- 
plines 
8-1. Criticisms of Graduate Schools by About 2,780 History Graduate Students, 

1958-1959 
8-2. Evaluations by 152 History Ph.D.s of 1958 of Their Doctoral Training as 

Preparation for College Teaching Positions 
8-3. Reasons Why 182 History Ph.D.s of 1958 Undertook Graduate Study 
8—4. Frequency of Recommendations for More Specific Teacher Training from 

126 Selected Four-year Colleges 
8-5. Time Lapse between Start of Graduate Study and Award of Degree to 182 

Ph.D.s in History of 195 8 
8-6. Ages of 181 Ph.D.s of 195 8 upon Award of the Degree 
8-7. Comparison of Faculty Guidance Received by Graduate Students in History 
and Other Disciplines (Sample of 2,764 Students), 1958-1959 



Chapter 1 

INTRODUCTION: AS SEEN BY 
THE CHAIRMAN 



Historians, like most scholars, are not given to analyzing the social 
import of their subject. Intrigued with the job they are doing, and 
in most cases subject to little external criticism, they rarely ask 
themselves precisely what they conceive their service to society to 
be. Yet the question is one that cannot be avoided. It was with a 
view to answering it that the American Historical Association 
appointed a Committee on Graduate Study in History, and that 
the Carnegie Corporation generously provided the funds for an 
investigation of current practices, with a view to improvement and 
progress. 

We shall not face up to our problems as historians unless we 
clearly apprehend that history is a special type of discipline, and 
that its utility must be measured in other ways than those applied 
to science, or even to economics or the arts. No other subject, 
except possibly philosophy, embraces the whole story of man. While, 
in the nature of the case, the historian must confine his special re- 
search to a restricted area, he is at all times under a special com- 
pulsion to see life whole. If he is equal to the demands of his high 
calling, he must, as he studies the past, relate one area of activity 
to another, for example, the history of foreign policy to the history 
of ideas, the history of the business cycle to the movements of 
politics, the story of religion to the cultural media in which it 

l 



2 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

finds expression. If he becomes too narrow a specialist, he misses 
some of the fundamental values of his profession. 

In the second place, it is to be remembered and emphasized that 
most historians are teachers. This is not to say that training in his- 
tory does not offer opportunities for employment in other fields. 
Of course it does. But the statistics of our investigation dramatize 
the fact that the vast majority of those who undertake graduate 
work in history are preparing for a teacher's career, and that many 
of those who are not teaching would be glad to do so. 

Again, we must clearly recognize that in history, more than in 
most disciplines, the teacher must transcend his materials. The 
facts of history can be dead as Marley and the doornail until they 
are put to use. The data of history can be well nigh meaningless 
until thoughtfully interpreted. The teaching of history will be 
effective in so far as it communicates, not facts alone, but the 
wisdom, experience, and insight that lie behind the facts. "The 
value of history," wrote one of the greatest of American historians, 
Carl Becker, "is, indeed, not scientific, but moral; by liberalizing 
the mind, by deepening the sympathies, by fortifying the will, it 
enables us to control, not society, but ourselves; it prepares us to 
live more humanely in the present, and to meet rather than to fore- 
tell, the future." 

It is with these general principles in mind that we here examine 
graduate preparation in history. 

We must also, of course, take account of some of the practical 
problems that confront us today. The place of history in the cur- 
riculum is vulnerable in a world which has so many pressing 
immediate problems. Other disciplines can, as of course they 
should, appropriate relevant areas of the historic past, drawing 
away from history some of those who ought to profit from its 
broader values. In a world of rapid change, attention can too easily 
be fixed upon the immediate, as against the long-term, factors in 
the life of man. We have seen a process of decline in classical studies; 
we have seen such important branches of history as ancient and 
medieval history threatened; there is danger that interest in history 
will be further narrowed. 



introduction: as seen by the chairman 3 

Moreover, graduate education in history — and the point of view 
of the professional historian — has come under sharp attack. Let me 
state, as the devil's advocate, the case against current historical 
scholarship. How does it run? The critic would say that a great 
proportion of our research is of limited interest to the great mass 
of persons who are interested in history. He recognizes that research 
is indispensable to the advance of knowledge, and that it is the 
means by which we stimulate and correct each other. But he would 
also say that much research is simply the accumulation of new 
data (sometimes data of restricted significance), rather than the 
search for new insights. Fie would contend that it amounts to little 
more than historians communicating with one another, rather 
than communicating with that greater audience to whom history 
may be useful and thrilling. He would go on to say that many 
historians possess very meager literary gifts. We have not, thank 
Heaven, like some other disciplines, invented a specialized vocabu- 
lary that gives to simple thoughts the appearance of profound 
learning and erects a barrier to understanding, or suggests pro- 
fundity where there is really superficiality. But even so, the critic 
says, few historians collect a wide company of readers, and the 
history that is read, that is lively and entertaining and influential, 
is not the history that the mass of historians write. 

It is not in meticulous research, says the critic, but in the class- 
room that history takes hold. There it is possible to communicate 
the larger aspects of history. There it is possible to give scope to 
wider views, and broader interpretations out of which the deeper 
values of history may be drawn. 

One radical point of view is expressed by such an experienced 
educator as Earl J. McGrath of Columbia Teachers College. Pro- 
fessor McGrath believes that the present training for the doctorate 
is ill-adapted to the preparation of effective teachers. To meet the 
problem he would provide two divergent educations, one for those 
who propose to enter the classroom and another for those who in- 
tend to engage in research. 

To go further with the case against current methods of training 
historians, in our investigations we discovered evidences of malaise 



4 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

at the increasing impersonality of graduate study. The aspirant for 
the degree, it is alleged, is rarely in any close rapport with his 
mentor. He is often left to himself. If it be true, as James B. 
Conant has asserted, that where there is a great scholar there is a 
great teacher behind him, our graduate methods, the critic laments, 
fall short of adequate preparation either for the classroom or the 
work of research. 

Having raised these various questions, let me now proceed to 
discuss them in terms of what the committee has learned and in 
terms of the principles agreed upon. First of all, let me say that 
the committee emphatically repudiates some of the ideas of Pro- 
fessor McGrath. The aim of the doctoral program is the prepara- 
tion of the scholar-teacher. None of us believes that the two 
functions ought to be separated. The practical situation in the 
college world runs against such doctrine. So, too, does the ideal 
which, in the field of history especially, should be promoted by 
graduate training. 

Good college teaching is possible only when the teacher is well 
trained in the methods of research. It is possible only when the 
teacher constantly seeks to enrich his knowledge of his subject. 
Without the spirit of scholarship, teaching degenerates into routine. 
It becomes dead and lifeless or superficial, and even meretricious. 
It sets a bad example for those whom the teacher teaches. On the 
other hand, exclusive, or even exaggerated, attention to research 
for those who are also teachers presents dangers of its own. It 
makes for indifference to the work of the classroom. It can, and 
sometimes does, destroy that friendly and stimulating relationship 
between teacher and student which is at the heart of education. 
It may reduce history to a mere display of technique rather than 
illumine it as a great humanistic discipline. It often restricts the 
researcher to communication with specialists in his own field, to the 
neglect of the immense values to be derived from history by under- 
graduates and laymen. 

Let us, then, reassert the fundamental fact. We are, to a large 
degree, preparing teachers. We are preparing teachers, moreover, 
who will in most cases have to teach, not some narrowly restricted 



introduction: as seen by the chairman 5 

area of their own choosing, but relatively broad courses, dealing 
with fields in which the knowledge is so wide that they cannot 
hope to get to the bottom of every problem, in terms of intensive 
and "definitive" research. We are preparing these people, for the 
most part, to teach not in the largest universities, but in a host of 
other institutions where the work of the classroom ranks higher 
in importance than sustained and minute research. 

The problem is to see to it that, in our justified zeal for scholar- 
ship, we do not neglect in our training for the doctorate the im- 
mense values to be drawn from history for the students who sit 
in our classes — for the large numbers of these students who are 
not headed for the career of a professional historian, but who can 
and will learn from the wisdom of the past in precisely the way 
Becker described the process in the quotation I have cited. 

The chapters that follow demonstrate that the demand for well- 
trained persons prepared for the teaching of history will grow. 
It will not grow at the astronomical rate that has sometimes been 
assumed. But even if we merely maintain the present ratio between 
Ph.D.s and those without the degree in the history departments of 
the country, there will be an increasing demand. And if the ratio 
of Ph.D.s is to be increased, the demand, of course, will be larger 
still. 

How shall we meet this demand? Will it be through larger 
numbers in the graduate schools of high prestige, or through the 
adding of doctoral programs? The committee has not attempted 
to give a categorical answer to this question. There are dangers in 
the enlargement of the present graduate schools, and especially 
the danger I have already mentioned, the danger of neglect of the 
student, the danger of impersonality. The danger increases, with 
the increasing tendency to draw off the best scholars, and often 
the best scholar-teachers, into extended research projects. On the 
other hand, it is extremely unwise for institutions to enter upon 
doctoral training with inadequate resources. On this subject we 
speak with definiteness on page 201 of our report. 

But first of all, as our report shows, we come back to the ques- 
tion of effective teaching or a more intimate concern for those 



6 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

whom we teach at the undergraduate level. Here, after all, is where 
the recruiting is done. Here is where enthusiasm for the life of the 
scholar is engendered. Here is where the fire is kindled, never to 
be put out. I do not mean to say that there are not many persons 
who become historians without the personal stimulus of an inspiring 
teacher. I do mean to say that an inspiring teacher makes a differ- 
ence, and I can think, as we all can, of teachers who, without ever 
writing anything very important themselves, have sent many of 
their students on to graduate school. 

There is a great advantage in catching the prospective historian 
early. If we take an intense personal interest in the brightest of our 
undergraduates, we shall be able to help them in very practical 
ways to accelerate their careers toward the doctorate. If we have 
some contact with them by the time they begin to concentrate, we 
shall be able to see to it, for example, that they start their language 
preparation. To take another example, almost any American his- 
torian needs some training in economics. If we know about these 
recruits for our discipline in time, we can see that they receive 
such training. We can see, too, that they start with some broad 
conceptions of history, and some wide knowledge, and do not 
undertake our discipline with the idea that they can operate only 
in a restricted area in time, space, and spirit. 

This question of early recruiting is discussed in more detail in 
the recommendations that conclude this report. I emphasize the 
matter here because it seems to me vital. We need to feel warmly 
toward those in our classes, to put forth our best efforts to inspire 
them, to help them, to guide them. I heard a distinguished professor 
a year ago express a thinly veiled scorn for undergraduates. Nothing 
could be more shortsighted. These undergraduates are the people 
from whom we must do our recruiting; they are essential to us; 
in the last analysis we cannot live without them, even from the 
narrow professional point of view. And in a broader sense, most of 
us exist in order to educate these undergraduates. 

But let us again turn from this matter to the actual training 
for the doctorate. Have we not fallen into a routine which we 
accept without analysis? Have we seriously considered whether our 



introduction: as seen by the chairman 7 

procedures really meet the needs of the situation? Do we really 
think that there is nothing to be done to improve them? 

Our report has a good deal to say on this subject. We find that 
a very frequently expressed desire is for broader training. This 
desire is legitimate. Indeed, it is fundamental. In our graduate 
training, if it is to fulfill its purpose, we must maintain standards 
of exactitude, of precision, of faithfulness to the spirit of research 
on the one hand, and respect for and interest in the larger view 
of history on the other. The problem is not simple. The materials 
in which the historian works are growing at an awesome rate, 
making more and more difficult — especially for the historian of 
relatively recent times — that "definitive" interpretation for 
which we all strive. The man does not exist who can give a general 
course in American history, basing it on an examination of all the 
materials in the monumental and highly useful Harvard Guide to 
Historical Literature. What then are we to do in preparing young 
men and women to teach such a course, as many of them will be 
expected to do? We shall want them to set an exacting standard 
for themselves in accumulating knowledge of this subject. But 
we must also encourage them to see their subject in the large, to 
look, not only for data, but for insights; to seek for suggestive 
generalizations — bold, but not too bold; to infuse not only learn- 
ing but enthusiasm into their lectures; to approach their subject 
with some fundamental intellectual and moral attitude of their 
own. For history is in the last analysis an "interpretation"; and the 
undergraduates whom most doctors of philosophy will teach will 
remember not the facts, but the interpretation. In particular they 
will hope to see in the teacher broad interest, wide tolerance, sen- 
sitiveness to beauty and goodness, a vivid appreciation of men and 
events, and an enthusiasm for communication as well as for 
knowledge. 

In theory, the training for the doctorate has never neglected 
this breadth of training in history itself. The general examination, 
or the qualifying examination as it is sometimes called, if properly 
organized, should meet this need. It should, and does normally, 
cover a substantial variety of fields. It is probably true, as our 



8 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

report suggests, that these fields are not always carefully chosen, 
and that more guidance of candidates is necessary. It may be that 
the fields are not always chosen with regard to the realities of em- 
ployment in our profession, that is, in some proper relationship 
to the subjects which are most in demand, and which the candidate 
for the doctorate is most likely to teach. But there is no reason 
why they cannot be. Nor is there any reason why the examination 
itself should test the examinee's zest for minutiae and not his 
ability to grasp the essentials in a fairly wide area of knowledge. 

But this, it may be, is not enough. We are suggesting various ex- 
pedients for giving the student breadth. I attach substantial im- 
portance to our recommendation that the aspirant for the degree 
be familiarized with the classics of historical writing. It will be 
found, almost invariably, that these classics illustrate the primary 
values of historical study, that they deal with large subjects, not 
small ones, that they are remarkable for their insights, not merely 
for the accumulation of the data, that they bear the stamp of the 
author's personality, and have color and form. It will also be 
found that they have literary quality. 

I believe, and I think this is implicitly included in the recom- 
mendations of the committee, that it would be helpful if every 
student had a course, or possibly a half course, in the philosophy 
of history. There is, of course, no philosophy of history that has 
eternal validity or that commands universal assent. The value of 
the study of this field lies in the invitation it offers to audacity, a 
virtue not much practiced in our profession. We need to play with 
large ideas from time to time, not because such diversion is a means 
to absolute truth, but because it is invigorating and stimulating. 
In seeking the definitive, we often overlook the value of the un- 
proven thesis, the incompletely substantiated theory, in exciting 
thought and spurring to research. Many of Frederick Jackson 
Turner's ideas on the frontier have come under heavy attack. But 
few men have done more to give to younger scholars new fields for 
speculation, or have promoted the progress of history more effec- 
tively by their own writing. 

But breadth of training is not in itself enough to prepare the 



introduction: as seen by the chairman 9 

doctoral aspirant for the classroom. The truth is that the conven- 
tional Ph.D. program does not really adequately prepare the stu- 
dent for the thing that he will be doing most of his life — that is, it 
does not teach him how to teach. 

I know that there are those who will say that teachers are born, 
not made. There is, of course, some truth in this view. You cannot 
make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. But if we are careful in our 
selection of our graduate students, there ought not to be many 
sows' ears among them. They will have the aptitude to learn some- 
thing about teaching if we provide them with the opportunity. 

There are certain elements of good teaching that can, indeed, 
he easily stated. It is elementary to speak so that you can be heard 
~ — though I have seen distinguished scholars who have not absorbed 
this simple fact. It is elementary that one does not read a lecture, 
that there is, in fact, no more certain way of draining a theme of 
interest than to divorce oneself from one's audience and cling 
devotedly to a manuscript, with head lowered except for an occa- 
sional peering over one's glasses at the victims— though I have seen 
real savants who have not learned this. It is elementary to give 
emphasis to the important by the tone of the voice, and perhaps 
by repetition. Young men need to be told these things, and if they 
are told them, they are likely to remember them. 

But it is clear where this leads. It leads to the principle that those 
who are to be prepared for teaching should have some chance to 
practice teaching under observation. As matters stand today, such 
instruction as graduate students perform is often thought of as a 
potboiler. I visited one distinguished university a few years ago at 
which it was freely confessed to me by the older members of the 
teaching staff that they never troubled to visit the section meetings 
of the young assistants in their classes, or even to inquire from the 
undergraduates how things were going. To ignore this duty not 
only is unfair to the individual but tends to denigrate the teaching 
function itself. It leads the student to believe that what is really 
important is his research, and that it does not matter much what 
goes on in the classroom. 

But there is more to the matter than this. The technique of the 



10 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

classroom is not the same technique as that required for writing 
a thesis in a narrow field. Classroom teaching means scholarship in 
action. A lecture is not a report in a seminar. It demands that one 
take a fairly large subject, organize the material with due regard to 
emphasis, draw the appropriate stimulating generalizations from the 
materials, and present the human story with a zest that commands 
attention and arouses enthusiasm. Similarly, conducting a discus- 
sion session is not the same thing as the presentation of elaborate 
data in writing. It demands skill in answering questions, in control- 
ling and directing debate, in bringing out the most relevant and im- 
portant conclusions. Do those of us who teach graduate students 
really know whether or not these prospective teachers can do these 
things? If we don't, shouldn't we? Have we not a clear obligation 
to give them some training from this point of view? After all, all 
of them will teach, not all of them will write, and many of those 
who do write will not write much. 

Our report, while laying stress on this matter, goes far beyond 
this. The graduate schools will place more emphasis on teaching 
when there is a clearer demand for good teachers from the colleges, 
the junior colleges, and, yes, the universities also. And not only 
where there is a clearer demand, but where there is a substantial 
and intimate interest. We suggest, therefore, not only that appoint- 
ing authorities ask specific questions about the teaching capacity 
of a prospective appointee, but that they make every effort to see 
him teach. If it is thought that it is too much of an ordeal for the 
candidate to ask him to teach before a class, there is always the 
possibility of inviting him to talk more informally to some student 
group — a history club, for example. Furthermore, after he has 
been appointed, he should be helped. The administrative officers 
ought to know whether he is fulfilling his function or not. Too 
often, says one of my friends in the profession, in recommendations 
for promotion good teaching is taken for granted. Praise on this 
point is pro forma, not usually based on knowledge. Our report 
contains many interesting suggestions on this matter. In my own 
view, the key question is supervision and visitation. There exists, 
among both novices and experienced teachers, much prejudice with 



introduction: as seen by the chairman 11 

regard to this question, and indeed it is easily understandable that 
young instructors should resent carping criticism and that older 
men should not wish to seem officious in their interest in their 
younger colleagues. The question is one of spirit. Given the right 
attitude, the visiting of a first-year teacher ought to be easy. 
Where the relationship between the older and the younger mem- 
bers of a history department is warm and friendly, a little coach- 
ing will seem the most natural thing in the world. 

But there is more to the matter than that. Of fundamental con- 
sequence is the importance, not the lip service, given to effective 
teaching by administrators, in our colleges as well as in the gradu- 
ate schools. Do they think chiefly of publication, and of publication 
on a quantitative basis? Do they assess publication in terms of the 
significance of what is published, or without regard to this criterion? 
Is a badly written article on a minute subject given the minor im- 
portance it deserves, or does it count just about as much as the 
published development of a new theme with insight and skill? 
I ask these questions; I do not answer them. I would, however, 
plead for a fuller recognition of the truly distinguished teacher, 
even if his literary output is small. There are men who go on learn- 
ing all their lives but who never get down to putting their knowl- 
edge on paper. There are scholars — I use the word advisedly — whose 
range of interests is so broad that they cannot bring themselves to 
the kind of investigation that is so much esteemed in the academic 
world. There are scholars — again I use the word advisedly — who 
diffuse wisdom in their classes, wisdom that is the fruit of reflection 
and experience, but who have a meager output in terms of highly 
specialized scholarship. In my long teaching career I have lectured 
in something like seventy American colleges. I have gone away 
from many of them convinced that we think too little of the values 
of history in terms of the classroom, too little of the men who 
make the classroom a place of joy, as distinguished from the pro- 
ductive scholars who care little for communication in any form. 

These questions relate to one other aspect of our training for 
the doctorate. The training is too long, takes too many years out 
of the scholar-teacher's life. Because it is long, it is too often not 



12 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

completed in regular consecutive sessions of university work. The 
result is that the young teacher finds himself suffering from 
schizophrenia. He wants to teach and teach well. He also wants to 
get his degree. He ends, all too often, by teaching none too well. 
It would have been better had he not been subjected to this divided 
loyalty. 

Professor Snell has shown that the average time taken to achieve 
the doctorate in history is more than seven years. Some of the 
obstacles to a briefer training may be beyond our reach. Early 
marriage, large families (possibly too large families while training 
is going on), and the necessity to earn a living often prolong doc- 
toral training. But one of the principal sources of the difficulty 
lies in the Ph.D. dissertation, in the selection, very often, of a sub- 
ject so massive that it requires years of preparation, that it neces- 
sitates extensive travel, that it becomes not a trial run, but a finished 
piece of scholarship on a level that only a few can attain. In his- 
torical study, unlike the sciences, men mature slowly in their 
discipline. We would, I think, be better advised if we thought of 
the thesis as a demonstration of capacity for intensive research, 
rather than as an ambitious attempt to cover a wide field. Were 
the thesis so regarded, it might be a more joyous experience than 
it often is. The choice of a really lively topic, capable of being 
explored, say, in a year's time, might emphasize to the student the 
fact that he is being trained, not chained to a task that often be- 
comes increasingly distasteful and destroys the zeal for research 
itself. This more modest requirement would excite to further 
learning, not exhaust interest in it. It would establish a healthier 
sense of proportion as to research itself. It would make it possible 
for the prospective Ph.D. to complete his job in a reasonable time, 
and free him for those first exacting years when his first duty — and 
it is to be hoped his deep pleasure — is to learn to master the job 
of the classroom. 

From time to time I am told that interest in teaching, as distin- 
guished from research, is on the decline and will continue to decline. 
I doubt it. My doubt is now confirmed by our report. Our graduate 
students often complain that they are not prepared for their voca- 



introduction: as seen by the chairman 13 

tion. Young men and young women undergraduates thrill as they 
have always thrilled to the man who makes the past live, who 
brings to the business of communication the same enthusiasm that 
he brings to the enlargement of his own knowledge and the pursuit 
of deeper scholarship. 

We ought never to surrender the desire to know more, and to 
know more deeply. But we must take care, in our developing schol- 
arship, that we do not become mere bloodless technicians, examin- 
ing the trivial for our own delectation, sacrificing the deeper values 
of history for the lesser ones. 

Let me seize the opportunity here afforded to say a word more 
about what some of these deeper values are. The mass of mankind 
and the great majority of our students are interested most of all 
in human personality. The tendency of contemporary historical 
study, a useful tendency if not carried too far, is to put the accent 
on ideas and systems and concepts of social movements. In doing 
this let us not forget the man. We learn much from the great 
figures of the past, from their virtues, from their accomplishments, 
yes, from their mistakes. If history is philosophy teaching by ex- 
ample, it is by the example of the individual that it communicates 
some of its most precious lessons. Let us never forget this. 

The second point I would emphasize is the value of history as a 
means of understanding another age or another society: of entering 
with sympathy into that age or that society. It is possible to become 
so enthralled with the data that the larger view is lost. But there 
is no more useful intellectual exercise than to seek to enter fully 
into the life of the past, to interpret it sympathetically, with its 
presuppositions and prejudices clearly held in view. Nor is there 
anything more valuable than really to understand another country 
and its outlook, not merely to talk about it, but to seize its Geist, 
its spirit. 

The third point I would emphasize is that the very essence of 
history lies in the establishment of perspective. The historian here 
contributes not only to his own profession, but to every intelligent 
human being; he liberates the individual from the preoccupations 
of the moment and teaches us all to place ourselves and our age in 



14 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

relation to other persons and other times. "History is never more 
valuable," wrote William Edward Hartpole Lecky almost a hun- 
dred years ago, "than when it enables us, standing as on a height, 
to look beyond the smoke and turmoil of our petty quarrels, and 
to detect in the slow developments of the past the great permanent 
forces that are steadily bearing nations onwards to improvement or 
decay." 

The list of the values to be found in history might be further 
extended. There is humor in history; that we must never lose sight 
of. There is chance in history, which ought to reconcile us to the 
fortuitousness of success and failure, and which serves to illumine 
the human story. There is drama in history, and we ought to look 
for the drama. But to go further would be unduly to embroider the 
theme. The essence of the matter is simple. Let us, in the search for 
deeper knowledge, never neglect the challenge to achieve new in- 
sights, and wider horizons than those which spring from highly 
specialized research. Let us inspire our graduate students to do the 
same. Let administrators and department heads encourage boldness 
and audacity. Let those who teach, and those who select teachers, 
assure themselves that the pageant of the past will never lose its 
color, that learning will be followed by insight, that a noble pro- 
fession will never give up to a few what was meant for the many. 



Chapter 2 

DO WE NEED MORE COLLEGE 
TEACHERS? 



For amost every day in 1960 a Ph.D. in history was being 
awarded in the nation. How does this output compare with total 
Ph.D. production in all fields? How does it compare with previous 
output of history Ph.D.s? Does it meet or exceed present needs? 
How much must the production record of 1960 be bettered to 
meet the needs of the 1960s for fully trained professional historians? 
These questions this chapter seeks to answer. 

Predicting the need for Ph.D.s in any field is an uncertain busi- 
ness. In 1945 one of the best studies of Ph.D. programs that have 
been undertaken conjectured that "after war shortages in doctoral 
personnel are made up, it is likely that for the next score of years 
society will demand a relatively small number of . . . doctors of 
philosophy." 1 Yet, by 1958-1959 the production of Ph.D.s stood 
at 284% of the level of 1939-1940 2 and as early as 195 5 anxieties 
about overexpansion had given way to fearful predictions that too 
few Ph.D.s would be available to educate the students of the 1960s. 
How were new teachers to be found in sufficient numbers? Predic- 
tions of academic crisis became commonplace and a few distin- 

1 Ernest V. Hollis, Toward Improving Ph.D. Programs (Washington, 1945), 
122,200. 

2 Bernard Berelson, Graduate Education in the United States (New York, 
1960), 32. 

15 



16 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

guished ones were published. 3 Salaries rose as the demand for teachers 
exceeded the supply. Disconcertingly, however, qualifications asked 
of new college teachers in some academic disciplines went down. 4 

Private foundations and the Federal government responded to 
the obvious need for action by sharply increasing the amount of 
scholarship and fellowship aid. Without the Woodrow Wilson Fel- 
lowships, the National Defense Fellowships, and other programs 
an academic crisis in the early 1960s would almost certainly have 
developed. 5 A crisis in the late sixties is still possible. 

THE GROWTH OF DOCTORAL TRAINING IN HISTORY 

The first step in estimating future supply-demand relationships 
in history is to determine how many Ph.D.s have been needed in 
the past. And Archbishop Fenelon's advice to the heir of Louis 
XIV still holds good: "It is not enough to know the past; it is 
necessary to know the present." 

The awarding of Ph.D.s in history began in 1882 when John 
Franklin Jameson at Johns Hopkins and Clarence Bowen at Yale 
received the degree. The next decade was one of rapid expansion. 
Herbert Baxter Adams at Johns Hopkins alone trained 38 Ph.D.s 
in history. In that ten-year period of beginning, seven institutions 
awarded Ph.D.s in history. Hopkins awarded somewhat more than 
half the national total during the eighties, and did so again in the 
five-year period, 1 89 1-1 89 5. 6 Meanwhile, a good many American 

"Committee of Fifteen (F. W. Strothmann, ed.), The Graduate School Today 
and Tomorrow: Reflections for the Profession's Consideration (New York, 195 5), 
7; Grayson L. Kirk and others, "The Education of College Teachers," in the 
Fifty-third Annual Report, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of 
Teaching (New York, 19 5 8), 11. 

4 See, e.g., New York Times, January 11, 1959; Ray C. Maul, "Will New 
College Teachers Be Adequately Prepared?" Educational Record, XL (October, 
1959), 326-329, especially 327. 

6 In 1960 Berelson, Graduate Education, 79, suggested that the statistics con- 
front the nation with a problem but not a crisis. He was immediately challenged 
by Earl J. McGrath. See New York Times, November 6, 1960. 

"William B. Hesseltine and Louis Kaplan, "Doctors of Philosophy in History: 
A Statistical Study," American Historical Review, XLVII (July, 1942), 766, 
772-775. See also Francesco Cordasco, Daniel Coit Gilman and the Protean Ph.D. 
(Leiden, 1960). 



DO WE NEED MORE COLLEGE TEACHERS? 



17 



historians were earning the Ph.D. in European universities. By 1927 
Marcus W. Jernegan could estimate that there were "about six 
hundred Ph.D.'s in history living in the United States and that 
the annual increase is fifty or more." 7 

This is no place to tell in detail how annual production of Ph.D.s 
in history had been increased to "fifty or more," or how the rate 
was doubled, tripled, and more than sextupled during the next 
three decades. Table 2-1 shows the increase. Annual production 



Table 2-1 
Increase in History Doctoral Production, 1881-1952 





Approximate 










No. of 


Average 


Total No. 


Percentage of 


Year 


institutions 


annual No. 


of Ph.D.s 


all doctorates 


offering 
Ph.D.s in 


of history 


in U.S. 


accounted for 




Ph.D.s in 


each year 


by history 




history 


each period 




Ph.D.s 


1881-1882 


5 


2 


46 


4.3 


1891-1892 


13 


10 


190 


5.3 


1901-1902 


18 


19 


293 


6.5 


1911-1912 


22 


27 


500 


5.4 


1921-1922 


30 


50 


836 


6.0 


1931-1932 


46 


133 


2,654 


5.0 


1941-1942 


58 


151 


3,168 


4.8 


1951-1952 


65 


258 


6,139 


4.2 



source: Statistics are from: William B. Hesseltine and Louis Kaplan, "Doc- 
tors of Philosophy in History: A Statistical Study," American Historical Review, 
XLVII (July, 1942), 772-773; U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Wel- 
fare, Earned Degrees Conferred by Higher Educational Institutions, 1957-1958 (Wash- 
ington, 1959), table 6; U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 
(Louis H. Conger, Jr., and Marie G. Fullam, eds.), Projection of Earned Degrees 
to 1969-70 (Washington, 1959), pamphlet OE-54002, tables 1 and 3; A. J. 
Brumbaugh (ed.), American Universities and Colleges, 5th ed. (Washington, 
1948), tables 1-3; and Mary Irwin (ed.), American Universities and Colleges, 
8th ed. (Washington, I960), 1146. 

r W. Stull Holt, "Historical Scholarship," in Merle Curti (ed.), American 
Scholarship in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge, Mass., 1953), 86-87; Marcus 
W. Jernegan, "Productivity of Doctors of Philosophy in History," American 
Historical Review, XXXIII (October, 1927), 20. 



18 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

since 1951-1952 has fluctuated sharply. Because production was 
swelled by returning veterans in the years just after World War II, 
the increase during the last ten years has been somewhat less rapid 
than in previous decades (see Table 2-2). The average annual 
production of history Ph.D.s in the period 1953-1960 was about 
319. Comparison with the social sciences, with Education, and with 
English shows that in some related disciplines Ph.D. production 
through 1959 was somewhat like that in history but that increases 
in other fields were even larger (see Table 2-3). Yet history has 



Table 2-2 
Recent Production of Ph.D.s in History, 1953-1960 









% of all 


Academic 


No. of 


No. of 


doctorates 


year 


Ph.D.s in 


Ph.D.s in 


accounted for 


ending 


history 


all fields 


by Ph.D.s in 
history 


1953 


301 


8,309 


3.6 


1954 


355 


8,996 


3.9 


1955 


310 


8,840 


3.5 


1956 


259 


8,903 


2.9 


1957 


314 


8,756 


3.6 


1958 


297 


8,942 


3.3 


1959 


324* 
(350) 


9,360 


3.5 


I960 


342f 
(365) 


9,869 


3.5 



* Tabulations by the Office of Education for the academic year 1958-1959 
show 9,360 Ph.D.s in all fields, 324 of them in history. Our own survey of 
history departments brought reports of 350 Ph.D.s in history in the calendar 
year 1959. 

f Estimate based on reports by chairmen of history departments. 

source: History and general statistics through 1958 are provided by Walter 
Crosby Eells in Mary Irwin (ed.), American Universities and Colleges, 8th ed. 
(Washington, I960), 1146; U.S. Department of Health, Education, and 
Welfare, Earned Degrees Conferred, 1958-1959: Bachelor s and Higher Degrees 
(Washington, 1961), 31, 35. The I960 statistics were provided by Mabel C. 
Rice, U.S. Office of Education. 



DO WE NEED MORE COLLEGE TEACHERS? 



19 



Table 2-3 

Recent Production of Ph.D.s in History and Comparable Disciplines, 

1953-1959 



Discipline 



History 

Political science. . . 

Sociology 

English 

Economics 

Education 



Ph.D.s awarded, 1953, and changes (in % of 1953) 



1953 



No. 



301 
164 
157 
328 
223 
1,357 



% 



100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 



1954 



118 
93 
117 
109 
110 
110 



1955 



103 
110 
106 
104 
109 
108 



1956 



86 
124 
108 
116 
132 
117 



1957 



104 
95 
85 
107 
141 
133 



1958 



99 
104 

96 
102 
140 
151 



1959 



108 
116 
100 
114 
99 
119 



source: The Education statistics were taken from: American Association of 
Colleges for Teacher Education, "Preliminary Report of an Inquiry into Condi- 
tions Affecting the Pursuit of Doctoral Degrees in Education: Administrator's 
Phase," mimeographed report issued by the School of Education, University 
of Denver, 1959 (p. 1.18). Other statistics for 1953-1958 used in this table 
are those of Walter Crosby Eells in Mary Irwin (ed.), American Universities 
and Colleges, 8th ed. (Washington, I960), 1146. Statistics for 1959 were provided 
by the U.S. Office of Education. 

continued to produce more Ph.D.s than any of the social sciences 
(see Table 2-4). 

Prospects for an increase in doctoral production in history depend 
upon the number of students in residence, currently and in the 
near future. Recent trends in the award of bachelor's and master's 
degrees in history are shown in Table 2-5. In history as in other 
fields there was a "post-G.I. Bill" slump. The popularity of the 
master's degree in history dropped substantially after 1948 but in- 
creased after 1956. The marked increase in 1959, which augurs 
well for doctoral production in the early 1960s, apparently was due 
to the national fellowship programs. It is also encouraging to note 
the large absolute increase in bachelor's graduates in history. His- 
tory's percentage of all bachelor's degrees in the nation has held its 
own and even slightly increased in recent years. All in all, the 



20 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



Table 2-4 
Total Ph.D. Production in Selected Social Sciences, 1926-1957 





History 


Economics 


Political 
science 


Sociology 


All 
fields 


Period 


No. 


%of 
total 


No. 


%of 

total 


No. 


%of 

total 


No. 


%of 

total 


Total 
No. of 
Ph.D.s 


1926-1937 




















(12 years) 


1,448 


5.6 


1,410 


5-4 


524 


2.0 


490 


1.9 


25,871 


1938-1947 




















(10 years) .... 


1,219 


4.8 


1,185 


4.7 


475 


1.9 


604 


2.4 


25,381 


1948-1957 




















(10 years) .... 


2,830 


3.8 


2,254 


3.0 


1,501 


2.0 


1,329 


1.8 


74,497 


Total 


5,497 


4.4 


4,849 


3-8 


2,500 


2.0 


2,423 


1.9 


125,749 



source: Data provided by Walter Crosby Eells in Mary Irwin (ed.), Amer- 
ican Universities and Colleges, 8th ed. (Washington, I960), 1146. Cf. Marshall 
E. Dimock and Claude E. Hawley (eds.), Goals for Political Science, report 
of the committee for the Advancement of Teaching of the American Political 
Science Association (New York, 1951), 247-249. 

possibilities of increased doctoral production in history are present. 
The possibilities will not fully materialize, however, unless more 
women are encouraged to undertake doctoral studies. Some 30% 
of the current undergraduate history majors are women; but — for 
whatever reason 8 — in the period 1920-1950 women accounted for 
only about 14% of the Ph.D.s awarded in all disciplines. A study 
of 2,562 active historians in 1952 showed that 13% were women. 
The percentage today probably is no higher, for of the new 
Ph.D.s in history 10% in 1956-1957, 11% in 1957-1958, and 
14.8% in 1958-1959 were awarded to women. Thus, if any sure 
lesson can be drawn from the development of doctoral training 
in history in the United States it is that 13% to 15% of the 
history Ph.D.s — probably no more — will be women. 9 

8 Logan Wilson, in The Academic Man: A Study in the Sociology of a Pro- 
fession (London, New York, and Toronto, 1942), 137, suggests one. 

9 J. F. Wellemeyer, Jr., "Survey of United States Historians, 1952, and a Fore- 
cast," American Historical Review, LXI (January, 1956), 341; Walter Crosby 
Eells, "Earned Doctorates in American Institutions of Higher Education, 1861- 



DO WE NEED MORE COLLEGE TEACHERS? 



21 



Table 2-5 
Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctoral Degrees in History, 1948-1960 





Bachelor' 


s degrees 


Master's 


> degrees 


Ph.D. 


degrees 


Advanced degrees 




in history- 


in history- 


in history 


in history per 


Academic 

year 

ending 














100 bachelor's 
degrees in history 


No. 


% of all 
bach- 
elor's 

degrees 


No. 


% of all 
master's 
degrees 


No. 


% of all 
doctoral 
degrees 


Master's 


Ph.D. 


1948 


9,245 


3-4 


1,566 


3-7 


162 


3.9 


16.9 


1.7 


1955 


9,540 


3-3 


1,199 


2.0 


310 


3-5 


12.6 


3-2 


1956 


10,540 


3-4 


1,114 


1.9 


259 


2.9 


10.6 


2.4 


1957 


11,692 


3-4 


1,256 


2.0 


314 


3-6 


10.7 


2.7 


1958 


12,883 


3-5 


1,397 


2.1 


297 


3-3 


10.8 


2.3 


1959 


13,742 


3.6 


1,643 


2.4 


324 
(350)* 


3-5 


11.9 


2.3 


1960 


14,753 


3.8 


1,794 


2.4 


342 


35 


12.2 


2.3 



* See note under Table 2-2. 

source: Based upon data in the following volumes of the serial publication of the U.S. 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Earned Degrees Conferred by Higher Educa- 
tional Institutions: for the statistics on production in 1947-1948 (Washington, n.d.), 
table D; for 1954-1955 (Washington, 1956), table 3; for 1955-1956 (Washington, 1958), 
table 7; for 1956-1957 (Washington, 1958), table 5; for 1957-1958 (Washington, 1959), 
table 6; and for 1958-1959 (Washington, 1961), 31, 35, 38. Statistics for I960 by Mabel C. 
Rice, U.S. Office of Education. 

Another lesson that may be drawn is that 7 out of 8 Ph.D.s in 
history in the 1960s will be college teachers of history. In 1939 
probably no more than two-thirds of the history Ph.D.s of 1931- 
193 5 were engaged in teaching in universities, colleges, and junior 
colleges, but others would have been teaching if they could have 
found positions. Fletcher Wellemeyer has shown that "over 80 
per cent" of the historians of 1952 were "engaged in teaching." 
Of the history Ph.D.s of 1958, 88% held academic posts by the 

1955," Higher Education, XII (March, 1956), 110; U.S. Department of Health, 
Education, and Welfare, Earned Degrees Conferred by Higher Educational Insti- 
tutions, 1956-1957 (Washington, 1958), 12; 1957-1958 (Washington, 1959), 
8; and 195 8-1959 (Washington, 1961), 173. For literature on the role of women 
in higher education see Walter Crosby Eells, College Teachers and College Teach- 
ing: An Annotated Bibliography on College and University Faculty Members and 
Instructional Methods (Atlanta, 1957), 127-128. 



22 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

fall of 1959 (including the 3% in npnteaching academic posi- 
tions), 10 

Because of the high percentage of history Ph.D.s that become 
college and university teachers year after year, history faculties 
have a larger share of Ph.D.s than do most other academic 
disciplines. About 65% of the historians on college and university 
faculties hold the Ph.D. 11 What is more, there has been no decrease 
since 1952, when a survey of 2,562 active historians showed that 
63% of them had doctoral degrees. This helps explain why most 
of the historians who were interviewed in 1959 showed little con- 
cern about an immediate shortage of Ph.D.s in history. 12 

10 For the 1939 statistics see Hesseltine and Kaplan, "Doctors of Philosophy in 
History," 775, 789; for 1952 see Wellemeyer, "Survey of United States Historians, 
1952," 348; for 1958 see appendix H of this volume for information about a 
questionnaire completed by 182 Ph.D.s of 1958, of whom 177 answered the 
question about current occupations. See also National Education Association 
(Ray C. Maul, ed.), Teacher Supply and Demand in Universities, Colleges, and 
Junior Colleges, 1957-58 and 195 8-59 (Washington, 1959), 45. In one place 
Ray C. Maul reports that 90% of history Ph.D.s go into academic work. In 
another place he suggests 75.8%. The last estimate seems much too low. 

11 See National Education Association, Research Bulletin, XXXII (December, 
1954), 164, for statistics on faculty in all fields. The statistics on historians have 
been compiled from questionnaires completed by heads of departments in junior 
colleges, colleges, and universities. For information on these questionnaires see 
appendixes A, B, C, and F. Up-to-date statistics on total faculty are not available, 
and it should be remembered that the percentage of Ph.D.s on college faculties 
(total fields) has declined since 1953-1954. It should also be noted that the 4,516 
history teachers whose degrees were reported to this committee include all the 
faculties of history departments that offer Ph.D. training. Their very large per- 
centage of Ph.D.s may make our percentage of 68% for the 4,516 somewhat 
larger than the percentage of Ph.D.s among all history teachers in higher edu- 
cation. Even allowing for this, it seems highly probable that at least 65% of all 
the history teachers in the nation's colleges, junior colleges, and universities have 
the Ph.D. (The total number of history teachers above the high school level is 
not known. Perhaps in 1959-1960 there were about eight thousand of them.) 

12 Wellemeyer, "Survey of United States Historians, 1952," 345. For a report 
on the interviews of some 230 historians in 1959 see appendix E. Separate presenta- 
tions of data on the percentages of faculty members holding the Ph.D. in 
junior colleges, colleges, and universities appear in chap. 4, below. They bear 
out the estimate that at least 65% of the nation's history teachers in higher 
education hold the Ph.D. 



DO WE NEED MORE COLLEGE TEACHERS? 23 



FUTURE NEED FOR PH.D.S IN HISTORY 

The basic element of uncertainty in predicting future needs is 
our inability to know how many persons will seek instruction in 
colleges and universities in the future. The National Education 
Association (NEA) and Bernard Berelson agree that 6 million stu- 
dents in 1969-1970 is a reasonable prediction. But no one can know 
exactly what the teacher-student ratio will be in 1969-1970; an- 
other unknown is the annual rate of replacement of existing facul- 
ties. The NEA estimates a need for 346,800 new college teachers 
in the eleven-year period 1959-1970, while Berelson believes that 
180,000 new teachers will suffice. 

These general estimates provide, therefore, only a broad frame- 
work for any prediction of the number of historians needed in the 
1960s; yet these are the most up-to-date and best-informed esti- 
mates. Other questions arise. Will historians continue to make up 
3.4% of the total national faculty in higher education — as in 1959- 
1960? Will 65 % of the history faculty continue to be holders of the 
Ph.D. — thus maintaining the approximate standard of 1959-1960? 
Will the Ph.D.s in history who become college and university 
teachers of history be 85% of all Ph.D.s produced, as in recent 
years? If the answer to each of these questions is "y es >" then the 
total production of Ph.D.s in history, 1959-1970, must fall be- 
tween a low of 4,680 and a high of 9,024, depending upon whether 
Berelson's estimate or that of the NEA is used. Reduced to average 
annual production, between 425 and 820 history Ph.D.s per year 
will be needed during the 1960s. 13 

Obviously this gives little help to graduate faculties in history 
as they plan their Ph.D. programs for the 1960s. Another esti- 
mate of the number of history Ph.D.s that will be needed is here 
suggested, therefore. This one also rests upon certain assumptions: 
(1) that a rising student-faculty ratio will just about counter- 
balance any increase in the percentage of college-age population 
enrolling in college during the 1960s; and, therefore, (2) that the 

"National Education Association, Teacher Supply and Demand . . . 1957-58 
and 1958-59, 50-51; Berelson, Graduate Education, 76-7%. 



24 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

new history faculty needed each year will increase in direct pro- 
portion to the increase in the number of 18 -year-olds in the na- 
tional population. 

It is also possible to predict the increase in the number of enter- 
ing history graduate students in the nation if we assume, further, 
that students enter at 22 and that their numbers will rise in pro- 
portion to the number of 2 2 -year-olds in the national population. 
Finally, it is possible to predict how many history Ph.D.s are 
likely to be awarded annually if we make the following additional 
assumptions: (1) that Ph.D.s in history will be awarded the de- 
gree at a median age of 31 (the median age of the history Ph.D.s 
of 1958 was about 33.5); and (2) that their increase will be in 
direct proportion to the increase in number of 31 -year-olds in the 
nation. Table 2-6 shows the projections that can be made if all 
these sets of assumptions are accepted. 

Table 2-6 can be extremely useful in that it suggests the sharp 
variability that the trends in live births will impose upon higher 
education during the 1960s. It cautions against complacency by 
showing that a shortage of Ph.D.s in history is likely to make itself 
felt in 1964, giving little notice of its coming except for the 
temporary warning in 1960-1961 resulting from the increased 
births of 1942 (10.6% more than in 1941). In 1964 the number 
of 18-year-olds will jump sharply (19.3%) just when the number 
of 31 -year-olds (born in 1933) will reach the lowest level of the 
whole period 1945-1970. Reports of placement officers in 16 uni- 
versities 14 show that in most fields of history there is no significant 
backlog of unemployed Ph.D.s who can help meet the rising de- 
mand of the 1960s. The new talent that can be discovered must 
meet most of the needs of the next decade. 

Sustained efforts to recruit superior students will be needed 
throughout the 1960s, because another sizable increase in live births, 
that of 1951 (6.3% more than in 1950), will make itself felt in 
college enrollments in 1969-1970 — bringing another increase in 
the demand for college teachers. Meanwhile, there will be no sub- 

" For a list of the 1 6 institutions whose placement officers completed our ques- 
tionnaire see appendix G. 



DO WE NEED MORE COLLEGE TEACHERS? 25 

Table 2-6 

Predicted Quantitative Trends in Graduate Education in History, 
1959-1970, Based Upon Increases in Live Births* 







Probable annual 

production of 

history Ph.D.s, 

assuming 31 is 

the age at which 

award is made 


History Ph.D.s 


Probable entering 


Live 
births 


likely to be 

needed to meet 

rising 


history graduate 

students in 

percentages of 






enrollments 


1959-1960 level 


Year 
of birth 


No. (in 
millions) 


Year 


No.f 


No.J 


Level (in %)§ 


1928 


2.674 


1959 


350 


350 


1959 


100 


1929 


2.582 


1960 


338 


387 


1960 


103 


1930 


2.618 


1961 


343 


402 


1961 


102 


1931 


2.506 


1962 


328 


380 


1962 


106 


1932 


2.440 


1963 


319 


370 


1963 


112 


1933 


2.307 


1964 


302 


442 


1964 


124 


1934 


2.396 


1965 


314 


495 


1965 


129 


1935 


2.377 


1966 


311 


471 


1966 


122 


1936 


2.355 


1967 


308 


472 


1967 


118 


1937 


2.413 


1968 


316 


470 


1968 


141 


1938 


2.496 


1969 


327 


499 


1969 


158 


1939 


2.466 


1970 


323 


506 


1970 


151 


1940 


2.559 














1941 


2.703 


















1942 


2.989 


















1943 


3.104 


















1944 


2.939 


















1945 


2.858 


















1946 


3.411 


















1947 


3.817 


















1948 


3.637 
















. . 


1949 


3.649 


















1950 


3.627 


















1951 


3.856 


















1952 


3.912 



















* The projections in this table assume no change in factors encouraging grad- 
uate study and completion of the Ph.D. See text for qualifications. 

f Annual variations in this column are in proportion to variations in numbers 
of births, 1928-1939, and thus in proportion to presumed numbers of thirty- 
one-year-olds, 1959-1970. 

X Annual variations in this column are in proportion to variations in numbers 
of births, 1941-1952, and thus in proportion to presumed numbers of eighteen 
year-olds, 1959-1970. 

§ Annual variations in this column arc in proportion to variations in numbers 
of births, 1937-1948, and thus in proportion to presumed numbers of twenty- 
two-year-olds, 1959-1970. 

source: Live-birth statistics from the National Education Association's 
Research Bulletin, XXXV (October, 1957), 104. 



26 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

stantial increase in the number of 31 -year-olds until 1972. It is 
desirable, therefore, to find ways to award Ph.D.s to the majority 
of doctoral candidates before they reach the projected median age 
of 31, and well before they reach the actual median age of the 
Ph.D.s in history of 1958, about 33.5. 

Yet, it is very important to note that Table 2-6 presents a 
model projection based on live-birth trends. It shows what might 
be expected to happen if the factors making for Ph.D. production 
in 1959 were to be neither increased nor decreased. In actuality, 
however, the national fellowship programs inaugurated or greatly 
expanded since 1956 are new factors of major importance. If they 
continue and increase their financial support for graduate study, 
the demand for historians in the 1960s can be met. It is note- 
worthy that the number of Ph.D.s in history granted in 1960 — 
approximately 342 — somewhat exceeded the number that might 
have been expected on the basis of birth trends (338; see Table 
2-6). It appears, therefore, that the effect of increased financial 
support since the mid-1950s is already being felt. 

Other qualifications of the yearly trends predicted in Table 
2-6 must be noted. Table 2-6 makes the annual peaks and valleys 
of supply and demand sharper than they will be in reality. It is 
worthwhile, therefore, to calculate the average annual production 
and need for Ph.D.s for three periods. Our predicted averages fall 
much closer to Berelson's conservative estimate than to the NEA 
prediction. They confront historians with a challenge, but one 
that can be met without encouraging less-than-superior students 
to undertake graduate study and without encouraging unprepared 
departments to offer Ph.D. training. The immediate tasks are: (1) 
to raise average annual production of Ph.D.s from the 319 of 1953- 
1960 and the estimated 365 of 1960 to an average of 378 per year 
in the period 1959-1963; and (2) to recruit superior students who 
can be expected to earn the Ph.D. between 1964 and 1970. About 
470 will be needed annually, 1964-1968, and 502 will be needed 
annually in the period 1969-1970. 

It must be emphasized that we have discussed the expected 
need for new Ph.D.s, not the expected need for new college teachers 



DO WE NEED MORE COLLEGE TEACHERS? 27 

of history. If we speak in terms of new teachers rather than new 
Ph.D.s, then we must talk in terms of at least 672 annually (Berel- 
son's statistics suggest 556; NEA statistics, 1,073) for the eleven- 
year period 1959-1970. 

Still another point must be emphasized here. The number of new 
Ph.D.s in history that we have estimated to be needed will result 
in no increase at all in the percentage of Ph.D.s on history faculties; 
they will only maintain the standards of preparation already 
achieved in the 1950s. Is that enough? One of the dismal aspects 
of many similar estimates of need for new faculty in the 1960s is 
their tendency to abandon a traditional American determination 
to raise the qualifications of college teachers. Too often it is sug- 
gested that mere preservation of the status quo will be triumph 
enough in the 1960s. It will be a strange and disturbing new 
epoch in the history of American higher education if the genera- 
tion of the 1960s is willing to settle for no more than that. 

VARIATIONS IN SUPPLY AND DEMAND 

Programs for training Ph.D.s in history are too complex to be 
created suddenly and they can seldom be expanded swiftly. Thus 
patterns of the production of Ph.D.s in the various regions of the 
nation and in the diverse fields of history will probably continue 
for some time to resemble those of the recent past. 

In the period 1936-1956 the regions of the nation accounted for 
the following percentages of all 4,240 history Ph.D.s produced: 
East, 44%; Midwest, 29%; West, 15%; South, 12%. 15 Table 2-7 

15 National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council (M. H. Trytten 
and L. R. Harmon), Doctorate Production in United States Universities, 1936— 
1956, with Baccalaureate Origins of Doctorates in the Sciences, Arts, and Hu- 
manities (Washington, 195 8), table 3. 

Throughout this study the following regional classifications will be used: 
East: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecti- 
cut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, 
and the District of Columbia. South: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, 
Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, 
Tennessee, and Kentucky. Midwest: Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wiscon- 



28 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



TABLE 2-7 
Regional Variations in Production of 1,482 Ph.D.s, 1955-1960 



Region 


Percentage of total reported Ph.D.s 


1955 


1956 


1957 


1958 


1959 


East* 


43 
16 
26 
15 


41 
18 
26 
14 


42 
13 
33 
12 


47 
17 
24 
12 


43 


South* 


14 


Midwest* 

West* 


28 
15 







* For definition, see footnote 15 for this chapter. 

source: Based upon questionnaires completed for this study by chairmen of 
81 departments offering Ph.D. training in history, 1955-1959. See appendix F. 



shows what the regional patterns of productivity have been in 
recent years. In the production of Ph.D.s in history as in the 
natural sciences 16 the South lags decisively behind other regions 
of the nation. Regional variations in current graduate enrollments 
make it possible to predict that the pattern of Ph.D. production 
revealed by Table 2-7 will continue into the early 1960s (see 
Table 2-8). 

Differences in production among the various fields of history 
are of more immediate significance than are regional variations in 
production. Historians, like other scholars, specialize, and predic- 
tions of supply and demand must take cognizance of their special- 
ties. Historians may specialize in the history of one facet of human 
experience (e.g., in intellectual history or diplomatic history) . 
They also may specialize in a larger or smaller geographical region 
(e.g., in Russian history, or the history of the South in the United 
States). Historians specialize, too, in limited periods of history. 
Thus a Ph.D. candidate may elect to concentrate on the history of 

sin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska. West: South Dakota, North 
Dakota, Montana, "Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, 
Idaho, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, and Alaska. 

18 R. H. Knapp and H. B. Goodrich, The Origins of American Scientists (Chi- 
cago, 1952), 45, 53. 



DO WE NEED MORE COLLEGE TEACHERS? 



29 



Table 2-8 

Regional Distribution of Ph.D. Candidates in History 
in 80 Universities, 1958-1959 



Status of 
candidates 


East 


South 


Midwest 


West 


Nation 


No. 


%of 
total 


No. 


%of 
total 


No. 


%of 

total 


No. 


%of 

total 


No. 


% 


Ph.D. candi- 
dates on 
campus 

Ph.D. candi- 
dates off 
campus 


919 
592 


47 
49 


293 
162 


15 
13 


469 
310 


24 
26 


274 
146 


14 
12 


1,955 
1,210 


100 
100 



source: Based upon data provided by chairmen of 81 Ph.D. -training departments of 
history. Unless otherwise noted, the data for subsequent tables were gathered as set 
frth in appendixes A-K. 



Europe since 1789 and more particularly on the political history 
of France in the period 1870-1940. 

Historians in the United States have shown a stronger interest in 
"modern" history (the period since about 1500 a.d.) — and even 
"recent" history (since about 1900) — than in ancient or medieval 
history. This is no new trend; of the 1,410 new Ph.D.s of 1929- 
1939, no less than 92% were specialists in modern history. At 
least 88% — and probably somewhat more — of the new Ph.D.s of 
1955-1959 were specialists in modern history. 17 

More American historians have specialized in the history of their 
own country than in the history of any other nation. We have 
moved a long way from the situation of 1890, when Herbert 
Baxter Adams wrote that he wanted "a fair field for comparative 
studies in Church and State and the Institutes of Education, with- 

17 A. J. Brumbaugh (ed.), American Universities and Colleges, 5 th ed. (Wash- 
ington, 1948), tables 1-3; questionnaires completed by chairmen of 81 history 
departments that offer Ph.D. training. Henceforth in this study the questionnaires 
that have already been cited will not be footnoted. When data in the text are 
not accounted for in the footnotes the reader may assume that they are derived 
from one or another of the data-gathering tools described in the appendixes. 



30 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

out being regarded as an American provincial." In the entire period 
1873-193 5, 57% of all Ph.D.s in history were awarded in Ameri- 
can history (including a small percentage in Latin-American his- 
tory). And 51% of the new Ph.D.s in history in the five-year 
period 195 5-1959 were specialists in United States history. 18 

But it would be a mistake to assume that historians in the United 
States are especially provincial. More history of foreign areas is 
taught in the United States than in any other nation in the world. 
Only in the South is the historical study of foreign areas markedly 
underdeveloped, and there the study of England and Latin America 
are exceptions to the prevailing pattern of concentration in United 
States history. 19 In the nation as a whole a significant number of 
Ph.D.s in European history have been trained. They accounted for 
12% of those who became Ph.D.s in history between 1880 and 
1900, 35% of those in the period 1926-1935, and 38% of those 
in recent years. (Ancient and medieval history and the history of 
all modern European nations — including England and the U.S.S.R. 
or Russia — are treated here as "European" history.) The produc- 
tion of specialists in Russian history still appears to be much lower 
than it should be, although "the past decade has witnessed a virtual 
revolution in Russian studies." 20 Asian, African, and Latin-Amer- 
ican history have almost held their own in the post- 194 5 period, 
but it may seem surprising that they have done no more than that 
in an age of "cold war" and of rising concern about the "uncom- 
mitted" or "underdeveloped" countries (see Table 2-9). 

One development could change the pattern of Ph.D. production 
revealed by Table 2-9: if demand in one or another field should 
rise or fall substantially, in time the production of Ph.D.s would 

18 Holt essay in Curti (ed.), American Scholarship in the Twentieth Century, 
100-101; Hesseltine and Kaplan, "Doctors of Philosophy in History," 776-777; 
"Wellemeyer, "Survey of United States Historians, 1952," 342-344; and data on 
1,455 new Ph.D.s, 195 5-1959, reported by the Ph.D. -training departments to 
this committee. 

19 See John L. Snell (ed.), European History in the South: Opportunities and 
Problems in Graduate Study (New Orleans, 19 59). 

20 Cyril E. Black and John M. Thompson (eds.), American Teaching About 
Russia (Bloomington, Ind., 1959), 22-113. 



i 



DO WE NEED MORE COLLEGE TEACHERS? 



31 



Table 2-9 

Ph.D.s in History by Geographical Areas 
of Specialization. 1873-1959 



Geographical area 


Percentage of all new 

Ph.D.s in history 

1873-1935 


Percentage of all new 

Ph.D.s in history 

1955-1959 


American history (total) 

United States 


57 

X* 
X 

33 

X 

X 
X 
X 

X 

5 
5 


55.5 

51.0 


Latin- American 

European history (total) 

Modern European 


4.6 
38.4 
24.0 


English-British 

Commonwealth 

Medieval 


7.9 
5.1 


Ancient 

Russian-Slavic 


0.7 
0.7 


Asian- African history 

Other history 


3.8 
2.3 







* Data not available. 

source: Based upon data reported to this committee together with statistics 
in William B. Hesseltine and Louis Kaplan, "Doctors of Philosophy in Hist- 
ory: A Statistical Study," American Historical Review, XLVII (July, 1942), 774, 
776-777. 

be adjusted to meet the new situation. In estimating future needs 
for history Ph.D.s it is essential to know how demand is now dis- 
tributed among the various fields of history. 

In the fall of 1959, chairmen of Ph.D. -training history depart- 
ments were asked about the supply and demand for new Ph.D.s, 
as they had experienced it, in the period 1957-1959. The supply 
of new Ph.D.s in United States history seems to exceed the demand, 
say 19% of the respondents; the demand seems to exceed the sup- 
ply, say 46%. Only 7% of the respondents say that the supply of 
Ph.D.s exceeds the demand in modern European history; 65% 
report that demand exceeds supply. Obviously the demand for 
Ph.D.s in modern European history is less often being satisfied 
than is the demand for Ph.D.s in United States history. But gradu- 



32 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



ate history departments in all regions of the nation report a short- 
age more often than a surplus of Ph.D.s. Although more Ph.D.s in 
history were awarded in 1959 and again in 1960 than in any year 
since 1954, they did not glut the market. There were more positions 
than new Ph.D.s in both major fields of history. 

What about other fields of history? In November, 1958, the 
chairmen of 77 Ph.D. -training departments of history and 502 
college departments were asked to list the appointments in history 
they expected to make between 1959 and 1970. Only the returns 
for the period 1959-1961 were full enough to be useful. The 
specific fields in which appointments were anticipated are ranked in 
Table 2-10 according to the frequency with which they were re- 
ported. Table 2-10 also shows for comparative purposes the poten- 
tial supply of Ph.D.s by specifying the fields of specialization among 
Ph.D. candidates "enrolled and on campus" in 81 Ph.D. -training 
departments of history in 1958-1959. 

In yet another attempt to discover the relation between demand 



Table 2 10 

Anticipated Faculty Appointments and Ph.D. Candidates 
in Various Fields of History, 1958-1959 



Fields of history 


No. and% of all 
anticipated appoint- 
ments for 1959-1961 


No. and % of all 
Ph.D. candidates in 

residence, first 
term of 1958-1959 


United States 

Modern Europe 


121 (35%) 
105 (30%) \ 

25 (7%) J 

29 (8%) 

21 (6%) 

12(3.5%) 

10 (3%) 
7 (2%) 
1 (0.3%) 

16(5%) 
347 (99.8%) 


957 (55%) 


Russia-East Europe 


483 (28%) 


Asia and Far East 


59 (3%) 


Medieval 


68 (4%) 


Latin America 


67 (4%) 


English-British Commonwealth 
Ancient 


81 (5%) 
19 (1%) 


Africa 


1 (0.05%) 


Other 


(0%) 


Total 


1,735 (100.05%) 







DO WE NEED MORE COLLEGE TEACHERS? 33 

and supply in various fields of history, chairmen of Ph.D. -training 
departments were asked, in November, 1959, to name the fields 
in which they noted either a current shortage or a current surplus, 
and those in which they expected the shortage or surplus to continue. 
It appears from these reports that good positions for new Ph.D.s 
in some fields of United States history, in English-British Com- 
monwealth history, and in Latin-American history may be difficult 
to find during the next several years. On the other hand, an in- 
creased number of able Ph.D.s in all fields should have no difficulty 
in finding college teaching positions of one type or another during 
the 1960s. 21 

SUMMARY 

The picture of the coming decade that we have painted looks 
very different from different perspectives. To the graduate student 
or the young Ph.D. it shows positions available and reasonably 
rapid professional advancement likely in most fields of history. 
To those responsible for securing qualified faculty members it 
shows a shortage of qualified teachers in these fields of history. 

Several things could change our basic predictions. The estimates 
given in Table 2-6 assume that conditions will be those of peace- 
time; that a substitute doctorate — specifically for college teachers 
and cheaper than the Ph.D. — will not be offered; 22 that the one- 
year master's degree will not become an acceptable qualification 
for a permanent college teaching position; 23 that historians will 
not teach radically larger classes than those they were teaching in 

21 See American Council of Learned Societies Newsletter, X (June, 1959), 
3-4, on the shortage of specialists in the history of religions. 

22 The Committee of Fifteen refused to endorse the idea of a second doctorate. 
The following recent renewal of the idea has won very little sympathy among 
historians: Earl J. McGrath, The Graduate School and the Decline of Liberal 
Education (New York, 1959). Berelson cautiously suggests that it "might be 
tried," but he admits that "only college presidents and people from departments 
of education favor it" (Berelson, Graduate Education, 250-251, 90). 

23 See also Berelson, Graduate Education, 91, and chap. 5, below. 



34 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

1959-1960; and that television sets will not be widely used in his- 
tory classrooms as substitutes for teachers. 24 Different assumptions 
would lead to lower estimates of the number of Ph.D.s in history 
that will be needed. Different assumptions have not seemed war- 
ranted. 

Prediction of the future need for Ph.D.s involves many variables. 
The two best general estimates of need for Ph.D.s — those by Berel- 
son and the NEA — differ widely, as we have shown. Using our 
own method of calculation (explained on pages 23-26) we con- 
clude that we will need an average of 378 Ph.D.s per year, 1959— 
1963; 470 per year, 1964-1968; and 502 per year in 1969 and 
1970. The probable growth of junior college and other professional 
demands for Ph.D.s, which were not included in our calculations, 
may well create a need for many more Ph.D.s than has been 
suggested here. 25 An increase over the present percentage of teachers 
who hold the Ph.D. would also require more Ph.D.s than have been 
predicted. 

24 On the methods being used to meet increasing enrollments and teacher 
shortages see U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (Clarence B. 
Lindquist), College and University Faculties: Recent Personnel and Instructional 
Practices (Washington, 1959), 21-23. Many history departments already have 
higher student- faculty ratios than were suggested as desirable by Beardsley Ruml 
and Donald H. Morrison, Memo to a College Trustee: A Report on Financial and 
Structural Problems of the Liberal College (New York, 1959). For a thoughtful 
justification of large classes see Eric A. Walker, "Quality in Quantity," Educa- 
tional Record, XL (April, 1959), 129-136. For a cogent criticism of large 
classes see Bruce R. Morris, "Faculty Salaries, Class Size, and Sound Education," 
American Association of University Professors Bulletin, XLV (June, 1959), 196- 
202. On the pros and cons of educational television a large body of literature 
already exists. For bibliography see Walter Crosby Eells, College Teachers and 
College Teaching, 195-203. See especially John C. Adams and others, College 
Teaching by Television (Washington, 195 8). A special "Committee on Utiliza- 
tion of College Teaching Resources" of the Fund for the Advancement of Educa- 
tion recommends teaching by television, large classes, small classes, and — for good 
measure — no classes (independent study) : Better Utilization of College Teaching 
Resources (New York, 1959). 

25 See, e.g., T. C. Holy and others, A Study of Faculty Demand and Supply in 
California Higher Education, 1957-1970 (Berkeley and Sacramento, 195 8), es- 
pecially 16-25, 52-54, 59-61. 



DO WE NEED MORE COLLEGE TEACHERS? 3 5 

The demand for Ph.D.s in history is not evenly distributed. In 
1959 there appeared to be a slight surplus of Ph.D.s in some fields 
of American history and a very slight surplus in British and Latin- 
American history. In other fields increasing numbers of Ph.D.s 
would help meet existing shortages. Regardless of fields and to a 
degree true of few other disciplines, Ph.D.s in history are headed 
toward teaching. This fact is of the utmost importance in the 
training process, and much will be said of it hereafter. 

Can the required number of Ph.D. candidates be found? If our 
estimate of actual 1960 production as 365 is accurate, only a slight 
increase is needed to meet the expected demand of 1961-1963. 
Thanks to the Woodrow Wilson and National Defense Fellowships 
there is likely to be no serious shortage of Ph.D.s in some fields of 
history before 1964. 

The needed increase in number of Ph.D.s for the years 1964— 
1970 (and, we repeat, such an increase is desirable), will be accom- 
plished in most fields of history gradually and without emergency 
measures. What is especially needed now are ( 1 ) some acceleration 
of Ph.D. training and (2) more attention by historians to recruit- 
ing students for graduate study. 



Chapter 3 

GRADUATE STUDENTS IN 
HISTORY 



"A basic aim of our society is to help each individual to fulfill 
the promise that is in him." * This is an American dream, and 
changes in world affairs have made it an American necessity. It is 
in the interest of the individual and of the nation that students 
capable of undertaking graduate study be discovered and encour- 
aged, in history no less than in other fields. For as Lord Acton so 
aptly put it, history "must be our deliverer not only from the undue 
influence of other times, but from the undue influence of our own, 
from the tyranny of environment and the pressure of the air we 
breathe." 2 

Already large numbers of college students are going on to grad- 
uate study. One out of forty persons who earn bachelor's degrees 
earns a Ph.D.; in 1900 only 1 in 60 did so. 3 Some 270,000 to 

1 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Education of the 
Academically Talented (reprinted from the 195 8-1959 Annual Report of the 
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching), 1. 

2 John Emerich Edward Acton, Lectures on Modern History (London, 1907), 
33. 

8 Hans Rosenhaupt, Graduate Students: Experience at Columbia University. 
1940-1956 (New York, 1958), 4. 

36 



GRADUATE STUDENTS IN HISTORY 37 

300,000 students are engaged in graduate study, perhaps as many 
as 8,500 of them majoring in history. 4 

Are sufficient numbers of the superior graduate students study- 
ing history? Who are the graduate students? Are they offered suf- 
ficient financial assistance? What are their career ambitions? An- 
swers to these questions show why historians must recruit students 
of superior ability for graduate study in history. They also suggest 
some of the basic conditions that must be considered in recruiting. 

ABILITY AND PREPARATION 

There are no certain standards of measurement to show the 
quality of graduate students in history in comparison with those in 
other fields. In one attempt to discover the ability and preparation 
of history graduate students, the new Ph.D.s of 1958 were asked 
to report how their graduate faculties had evaluated their talent 
for scholarship. More than half (56%) report that they were 
"rated high." Only 1 out of 8 says "average" or less than average. 
But many of the Ph.D.s came to graduate school with less than 
adequate preparation: two-fifths report that they were rated higher 
during the last year of graduate study than during the first year. 
Only 1 % were rated higher the first year than the last. 

The lack of precise standards for measuring scholarly promise 
makes it inevitable that some students will be admitted to graduate 
study who will not attain the Ph.D., much less distinction in their 
professions. Undergraduate grades and scores on admission exam- 
inations are helpful but not infallible indices of scholarly poten- 
tiality. 5 A study of eminent scientists has concluded that high — 

*Berelson, Graduate Education, 129, estimates the total number of graduate 
students in 1959 to be 278,000. Eighty Ph.D. -training history departments report 
the following number of graduate students in 1958-1959: 3,256 master's candi- 
dates; 1,5 5 5 on-campus doctoral candidates; and 1,210 off-campus doctoral 
candidates (a total of 6,021 graduate students). Many other graduate students 
attend institutions that offer the master's degree but not the Ph.D. 

6 See, e.g., Kenneth E. Clark, America's Psychologists: A Survey of a Growing 
Profession (Washington, 1957), 117. 



38 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

"but not the highest" — intelligence in combination with the great- 
est degree of persistence will achieve greater eminence than highest 
intelligence with less persistence. 6 

Ph.D. training attracts students of high intellectual ability. IQ 
scores of graduate students in law, medicine, and the Ph.D. pro- 
grams currently differ no more than four points (124 to 128). 7 
Elbridge Sibley in 1948 warned that "relatively large numbers of 
mediocre and inferior students" were being admitted to graduate 
study in the social sciences, but he concluded that the graduate 
student bodies in the social sciences were "not greatly inferior in 
previous scholastic achievement ... to those in natural science 
departments." 8 

Judged by grades, history is currently getting a large share of 
the better students, but not as many as some other disciplines. In 
an extensive survey of seniors and graduate students in 1957-1958, 
history graduate students ranked in the upper fifth of their high 
school classes somewhat more often than did the total sample, but 
less often than physics and English students. A-average college 
seniors in history were planning to undertake graduate study as 
often as the total sample, but a much larger percentage of the 
A-average physics students (86%; history, 55%) planned graduate 
study. 9 

Another way to estimate the quality of history graduate students 
is to compare test scores on the Graduate Record Examination 
(GRE) . These show that history is getting fewer of the best stu- 
dents than graduate faculties in history should hope to attract. 
A 1952 study of the average scores on the GRE of seniors in 11 
colleges showed that in the verbal tests the literature (564) , physics 

6 The 1953 conclusion by Anne Roe is quoted by R. W. Gerard (with M. L. N. 
Bach) , Mirror to Physiology: A Self-Survey of Physiological Science (Washing- 
ton, 1958), 75. 

7 Berelson, Graduate Education, 154. 

8 Elbridge Sibley, The Recruitment, Selection, and Training of Social Scientists 
(New York, 1948), 29-31, 38-39, 128. 

9 George L. Gropper and Robert Fitzpatrick, Who Goes to Graduate School? A 
Study of the Decision to Enter Graduate Training (Pittsburgh, 1959), 46, 48, 
5 0. There were 221 history students in the sample. 



GRADUATE STUDENTS IN HISTORY 39 

(531), and psychology (527) majors ranked higher than those in 
history (517). The history majors ranked higher than the other 
social science majors. 10 (Woodrow Wilson Fellows in the sciences 
in 1958-1959 "wrote better essays than the candidates in the 
humanities and social sciences." n ) A survey of the GRE scores of 
910 senior history majors of 1955-1957 shows that the mean score 
in history was 561. One-fourth (24%) scored higher than 640. 
An equal number scored lower than 500. 12 Thus graduate schools 
admitting history students in 1955-1957 with scores of less than 
520 on the verbal test (24%) and less than 500 on the history test 
were admitting persons relatively weak in preparedness for graduate 
study. 

Specific inadequacies of undergraduate training often trouble 
graduate students in history. Table 3-1 shows the types of under- 
graduate training that Ph.D.s of 1958 report as "greatly inade- 
quate." One can safely conclude that potential graduate students 
in history need better preparation than many have been getting in 
historiography and the methods of historical research as well as in 
languages. 

There are other shortcomings. The core of undergraduate prepa- 
ration for graduate study in history is a major in history for 3 out 
of 4 graduate students in history, and this is good. 13 But history 

10 See Educational Testing Service, Graduate Record Examinations Scores for 
Basic Reference Groups (Princeton and Los Angeles, n.d.), tables 1-6, 9; Sibley, 
The Recruitment, Selection, and Training of Social Scientists, 29-31; ETS, Na- 
tional Program for Graduate School Selection: Score Interpretation Handbook for 
Deans and Advisers, November, 1959 . . . (Princeton and Los Angeles, n.d.), 
14-16. See also mimeographed report by Gerald V. Lannholm and Barbara 
Pitcher, "Mean Score Changes on the Graduate Record Examinations Area Tests 
for College Students Tested Three Times in a Four-year Period," prepared in 1959 
for the Educational Testing Service (Princeton), which provided us with a copy. 

11 Woodrow "Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, Report for 1959 (n.p. 
[Princeton?], n.d. [I960?]), 69. 

12 ETS, National Program for Graduate School Selection, 14-19. 

"This proportion is based upon data from 312 recent Ph.D.s in history. Of the 
312, 169 are from our sample of 195 8 Ph.D.s. The data on 143 other Ph.D.s in 
history were provided by the Southern Regional Education Board through the 
courtesy of Dr. John K. Folger. 



40 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



Table 3-1 

Inadequacies of Undergraduate Preparation for Graduate Study 
in History Reported by 182 History Ph.D.s of 1958 







Number 


% of total 


Order of 


Type of 


reporting 


reporting 


inadequacy" 


preparation 


"greatly 


"greatly 






inadequate" 


inadequate" 


1 


Use of a second foreign 
language as a research 








skill 


98 


54 


2 


Preparation in philoso- 
phies of history and 








historiography 


78 


43 


3 


Preparation in historical 








research methods 


55 


30 


4 


Use of one foreign lan- 








guage as a research 


32 


18 




skill 






5 


Preparation in any spe- 








cial field of history 


29 


16 


6 


General preparation in 








history 


17 


9 


7 


Organizing and writing 








papers 


16 


9 


8 


Development of ability to 








work independently 


11 


6 


9 


General preparation in 
humanities and social 








sciences 


8 


4 



graduate students need more undergraduate study in related dis- 
ciplines than they commonly acquire. A recent study of graduates 
of four large colleges and universities in three southwestern states 14 
shows that no more than 1 2 % of the history majors in any institu- 
tion took any course in anthropology. In 2 of the 4 institutions 
almost two-thirds of the history majors took no economics, half or 

"Paul A. Brinkner, "Our Illiberal Liberal-Arts Colleges," Journal of Higher 
Education, XXXI (March, 1960), tables 2-3 and pp. 136-137. 



GRADUATE STUDENTS IN HISTORY 41 

more took no psychology, and more than one-third took no philos- 
ophy. Obviously, large numbers of history majors are not being as 
liberally educated as they should be for graduate study in history. 15 
Preparation in foreign languages, writing and organizing ability, 
and a general background of liberal education — these are just the 
qualities graduate faculties in many fields would like students to 
have when they begin graduate study. 16 History faculties do not 
differ in this respect. Even for a specialized field like Russian his- 
tory, the best undergraduate background for graduate study is 
said to be "general preparation in the social sciences and humani- 
ties, sufficient grounding in a single discipline to permit the begin- 
ning of disciplinary work at the graduate level without delay, and 
adequate language preparation." 17 

ACADEMIC AND SOCIAL ORIGINS 

Where do graduate students in history come from? Four out of 
five Ph.D.s in history earn their highest degree at an institution 
other than the one that awarded the bachelor's degree. In their 
search for perspective in time and space they come to graduate 
school from all types of colleges. 

Academic legend holds that small colleges are more productive 
of graduate students than large universities. Statistics support the 
legend. A 1959 study of 143 recently graduated Ph.D.s in history 
in the South shows that they hold baccalaureate degrees from 103 
institutions, most of them quite small. 18 The Woodrow Wilson 
Fellows of 1945-1960 were graduates of no less than 560 colleges, 
and a study of 7,000 younger "scholars" (new Ph.D.s and holders 
of graduate scholarships in all fields) in 1953 found that they had 

15 Ibid., 136. 

16 Berelson, Graduate Education, 141. 

17 Black and Thompson (eds.), American Teaching About Russia, 39. 

18 Data provided by Southern Regional Education Board through the courtesy 
of Dr. John K. Folger. The statement that 80% of Ph.D.s receive their degrees 
at an institution other than their undergraduate institution is based upon Welle- 
meyer, "Survey of United States Historians, 1952," 347. 



42 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

graduated from 562 colleges. Two small colleges — Swarthmore and 
Reed — produced the highest number of scholars per 1,000 gradu- 
ates (61 and 53 respectively) according to the 1953 survey. 19 On 
the other hand, while most teachers' colleges are relatively small, 
their productivity of scholars per 1,000 graduates (only 2.5) has 
been lower than universities and liberal arts colleges. 20 The dis- 
tinction of the faculty and quality of the students are more im- 
portant factors than size. 

Most history graduate students will, in fact, be graduates of the 
larger institutions. All but 4 of the 25 largest undergraduate pro- 
ducers of history Ph.D.s between 1936 and 1956 were large institu- 
tions. The five institutions that most often awarded bachelor's 
degrees to the history Ph.D.s of 1936-1956 are themselves graduate 
schools that rank among the six largest producers of history Ph.D.s. 
The lesson is clear that Ph.D. -training departments can find many 
of the graduate students of the 1960s in their own undergraduate 
colleges. 

Table 3-2 shows institutions that awarded bachelor's degrees to 
seven or more of the history Ph.D.s of 1936-1956. These 138 in- 
stitutions accounted for two-thirds of the scholars who won the 
Ph.D. in history, 1936-1956. 

History graduate students are to be found in every cultural, 
economic, and social stratum of America. Few women earn Ph.D.s, 
and yet 10% of the 1958 Ph.D.s in history were women. One Negro 
and two Orientals were in the sample of 182 (two other persons 
failed to respond to our question about racial origin). Two-thirds 
(63%) came from Protestant families. In religious background 
another 20% were Catholic, 13% were Jewish, and 4% were of 
some other faith, but many of the 1958 Ph.D.s have departed from 
the religious attachments of their families. Two-thirds of the Ph.D.s 

19 Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, Report for 1959, 11; 
Robert H. Knapp and Joseph J. Greenbaum, The Younger American Scholar: 
His Collegiate Origins (Chicago, 1953), 11, 16, 70. 

20 Ibid., 77. Apparently institutions with 3,000-5,000 students are the under- 
graduate colleges of a disproportionately large number of "Significant Contribu- 
tors" in psychology. Cf. Clark, America's Psychologists, 121. 



GRADUATE STUDENTS IN HISTORY 



43 



Table 3-2 



Leading Baccalaureate Sources of History Ph.D.s, 1936-1956 



No. Institution 

153 Harvard and 

Radcliffe (8) 
119 California 

(Berkeley) 
99 Yale 
77 Chicago 
75 Columbia 
74 CCNY 
69 UCLA 
68 Wisconsin 
67 Princeton 
62 Stanford 
52 Texas 
51 Michigan 
48 Illinois 
46 Minnesota 
42 Amherst 
38 Dartmouth 
36 North Carolina 
31 Oberlin 
30 Northwestern 
30 U. of Washington 
29 Brooklyn 
29 Pittsburgh 
28 State U. of Iowa 
28 St. Louis 
26 Catholic 
25 Indiana 
25 Swarthmore 
24 Alabama 
23 George Washington 
23 Johns Hopkins 
23 Ohio State 
23 Wesleyan 
22 Cornell 
22 Rochester 
22 Boston College 
21 Colorado 
21 Missouri 
21 Nebraska 
21 Pennsylvania 
21 Wellesley 
21 Williams 
21 Wooster 
20 Duke 
20 Miami U. 
20 Smith 
20 Vassar 
19 Virginia 
18 NYU 



16 
16 
15 
15 
15 
14 
14 
14 



No. Institution 

18 Oregon 
18 Syracuse 
18 Wayne State 
17 Boston U. 
17 Brown 
17 Georgetown 
16 Baylor 
DePauw 
Oklahoma 
Emory 
Kansas 

Western Reserve 
Arkansas 
Cincinnati 
Davidson 
14 Mississippi 
14 Mount Holyoke 
14 Rutgers 
14 St. Johns (N.Y.) 
14 Southern California 
14 Southern Illinois 
14 Vanderbilt 
13 Washington and 

Lee 
13 Wheaton (111.) 
12 Bowdoin 
12 Carleton 
12 Iowa State 
Teachers 
12 Occidental 
12 Reed 
12 Wake Forest 
11 Birmingham- 
Southern 
11 Bryn Mawr 
11 Dickinson 
Florida 
Hunter 
Loyola (111.) 
Northeast Missouri 

State 
Pomona 
Temple 
Utah 

11 Washington U. (Mo.) 
10 Fordham 
10 Gonzaga 
10 Maine 



No. Institution 

10 Southwest Missouri 

State 
9 Augustana (111.) 
9 Central Missouri 

State 
9 Colgate 
9 Earlham 
9 Grinnell 
9 Hamilton 
9 Haverford 
9 Howard 
9 Knox 

9 Louisiana State 
9 Rice 
9 Richmond 
9 San Jose 
9 Tulane 
9 Walla Walla 
8 Allegheny 
8 Clark 
8 Denver 
8 Georgia 
8 Gettysburg 
8 Kentucky 
8 Michigan State 
8 Morningside 
8 New Mexico 
8 North Texas State 
8 Union College 

(Nebr.) 
8 South Carolina 
8 Vermont 
7 Butler 

7 Concordia Seminary 
7 Creighton 
7 Franklin and 

Marshall 
7 Hiram 
7 Hobart 
7 Indiana Central 

College 
7 Manhattan 
7 Mill saps 
7 U. of Notre Dame 
7 Ohio Wesleyan 
7 St. Olaf 
7 Wabash 
7 West Virginia 
7 Western Kentucky 
State 



10 Penn. State 

10 Southern Methodist r) 

IfeS : c£S™ d H^jt St fr ti ? I? Nat T a ,i Acaden "' of Sciences-National 
UrivmMes «£ ,<,«' lT ten , and L - ?• Harm °«0> Doctoral, Production in United Stat,, 

-S^afhington; £&£&"* ***" " *"""'" " * **"*'■ **' W * 



44 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

of 1958 were married males, and 44% had children — most of them 
fewer than four but some with more than four. Only 1% were 
under twenty-six years of age when the Ph.D. was awarded. Three- 
fourths had passed their thirtieth birthday and 35% their thirty- 
sixth. 

This profile of graduate students in history is warped somewhat 
— but not much — by the fact that the persons providing the data 
had fully completed graduate study and were older than most 
graduate students. The main features of the profile are reinforced, 
and comparison with graduate students in other disciplines is made 
possible, by an independent study of graduate students conducted 
by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) in 1958- 
1959. 21 Thus history students seem to retain a religious affiliation 
more often than those in other disciplines. Notably more Catholic 
graduate students are found in history than in other disciplines. 
History students more often than others tend to come from the 
New England region. Married students are slightly less common in 
history than in other disciplines, and history students who are mar- 
ried do not differ significantly from other married students in the 
number of children they have: 26% of the history students re- 
ported having at least one child. Finally, in comparison with others, 
twice as many of the history students (12%) are forty years of age 
or more and somewhat fewer (26%) are under twenty-four. 

Berelson and others have shown that Ph.D. candidates tend to 
come from somewhat lower economic-social-cultural levels than 
medical and law students. 22 Ph.D. candidates in various disciplines 

21 Joe L. Spaeth, "Graduate Students in History," a mimeographed report pre- 
pared by the National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago, for the 
American Historical Association. The NORC survey included about three hundred 
graduate students in history. Its sample seems to contain a disproportionately high 
percentage of Catholic institutions (see appendix I). 

22 Berelson, Graduate Education, 134; Sibley, The Recruitment, Selection and 
Training of Social Scientists, 40; Gropper and Fitzpatrick, Who Goes to Gradu- 
ate School?, 50-51, 5 5. Gropper and Fitzpatrick report median annual income of 
fathers of graduate students in history in their large sample of 1957-195 8 was 
$5,600; fathers of law students, $8,300. 



GRADUATE STUDENTS IN HISTORY 45 

tend to be much alike in this respect. 23 Class origin seems to have 
little effect upon scholarly promise in one's field of specialization. 
The level of education of one's parents is a more important factor, 
but a recent study of psychologists showed that the parents of 
39% of a sample of "significant contributors" went beyond the 
high school level, while the parents of 42% of a sample of undis- 
tinguished psychologists had also gone beyond high school. 24 

Table 3-3 shows the educational and social background of his- 
tory graduate students in comparison with others in the NORC 
study and with a separate sample of graduate students in Educa- 
tion. Some historians may well conclude from Table 3-3 that grad- 
uate students from "better" families must be recruited in the in- 
terest of maintaining the professional prestige of academicians. But 
recruiting cannot be limited to any class. Indeed, most college 
history teachers will be found in the future where they are now 
being found, in families that do not rank by education, occupation, 
or income in the uppermost prestige levels of American society. 
This has especially important implications for the financing of the 
graduate education of historians. 

FINANCING GRADUATE STUDY 

In 1948 Elbridge Sibley showed that graduate students in the 
natural sciences held grants more often than those in the social 
sciences, and that the natural science grants tended to be larger. 
Six years after Sibley wrote, the National Science Foundation con- 
firmed his findings. The NSF study showed further that only 1 out 
of 5 (21%) history graduate students held stipends, "a lower 
proportion than in most social sciences," and that the median 
stipend for history students with grants was $930 — "among the 
lowest in social sciences." 25 

23 See Wilson, The Academic Man, 19. 

24 Clark, America's Psychologists, 106-107. 

26 Sibley, The Recruitment, Selection, and Training of Social Scientists, 113- 
126; National Science Foundation, Graduate Student Enrollment and Support in 



46 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



Table 3-3 
Social Origins of Graduate Students, 1958-1959 



Criterion 


History 
sample 


Total 
NORC 
sample 


Education 
sample 


Father: 
Failed to complete high school .... 
Earned bachelor's degree 


40% 
31% 
18% 
55% 
21% 

37% 

18% 

2% 

30% 
38% 


40% 
30% 
18% 
54% 
19% 

37% 

17% 

5% 

32% 
30% 


63% 
15% 
8% 
(about 55%) 
(about 20%) 

63% 
8% 

2% 

X* 


Earned higher degree(s) 


In "low prestige" occupation 

In "elite" occupation 


Mother: 

Failed to complete high school 

Earned bachelor's degree 


Earned higher degree(s) 


Graduate students : 
% meeting half or more of under- 
graduate expenses by own earn- 
ings 


% for whom no undergraduate 
expenses were met by parents 


X* 



* Data not available. 

source: Data on social background of history graduate students in comparison 
with others taken from Joe L. Spaeth, "Graduate Students in History," mimeo- 
graphed report prepared by the National Opinion Research Center, University 
of Chicago, for the American Historical Association, 1958-1959. The data on 
graduate students in Education are from American Association of Colleges for 
Teacher Education (J. Marlowe Slater and others), "Inquiry into Conditions 
Affecting Pursuit of the Doctoral Degree in the Field of Education," a mimeo- 
graphed report made available to the AHA committee through the courtesy 
of Dr. Paul M. Allen, tables XV-XXI. 



American Universities and Colleges, 1954 (Washington, 1957), 92-93. A com- 
prehensive study of fellowships for graduate study undertaken by John L. Chase 
in 1959 showed the following numbers, governmental and private, in the nation: 
Humanities: 1,139 (17%); Social Sciences: 1,043 (15%); Natural Sciences: 
4,578 (67%); Education: 56 (1%). Grants by individual institutions were not 
included in this survey. For a reliable published guide see Virginia Bosch Potter, 
Fellowships in the Arts and Sciences, 1960-61, 3d ed. (Washington, 1959). 



GRADUATE STUDENTS IN HISTORY 47 

The general observations of 1948 and 1954 must be altered in 
only one respect in 1960: because of expanded institutional grants, 
the Woodrow Wilson Fellowships, and the National Defense Fel- 
lowships, the financial difficulties of beginning graduate students 
have been somewhat alleviated. About 1 5 % of the Woodrow "Wil- 
son Fellows in recent years have undertaken graduate study in his- 
tory. With 167 Fellows in 1959-1960 and 202 in 1960-1961, his- 
tory ranks second only to English in numbers of Woodrow Wilson 
Fellowships. It appears that 72 (4.8%) of the 1,500 National De- 
fense Fellowships for graduate study in 1960-1961 were allocated 
for study in history. 26 

While additional financial support for beginning graduate stu- 
dents is needed, the scarcity of aid is now felt much more severely 
in the final stages of Ph.D. work, when the candidate must devote 
a year or more to research and the writing of a dissertation. Ful- 
bright grants for study abroad help a limited number of students 
at the dissertation level. But many others look unsuccessfully for aid 
at this stage, especially to defray the costs of travel in doing re- 
search. Some travel for dissertation research was reported by 85% 
of the Ph.D.s in history of 1958. Even in the seven Ph.D. programs 
that ranked highest in prestige in a questionnaire survey of 1959 
(see page 226, below) Ph.D. candidates find it necessary to leave 
the campus to complete dissertation research. Thus 57% of the 1958 
Ph.D.s in history from California, Chicago, Columbia, Harvard, 
Princeton, Wisconsin, and Yale report "considerable" or "exten- 
sive" travel. Yet only half the Ph.D. -training departments report 
that students are sometimes given grants if travel is required be- 
cause of "significant gaps in library holdings." 

Another serious deficiency in financing graduate study is the lack 
of help available for summer study. Since the stipends now granted 
do not provide for summer work, many students must interrupt 
their studies to earn a livelihood. The result is a break in the con- 
tinuity of training and delays in progress toward the Ph.D. 

26 Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, Report for 1959, 29; 
announcement of fellowships dated Jan. 5, 1960, by U.S. Department of Health, 
Education, and Welfare. 



48 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

Even the initial financing of graduate study remains troublesome 
for most graduate students, for there are many more students who 
are capable of earning a Ph.D. than there are grants to go around. 
Only about 1 out of 8 of the nominees for Woodrow Wilson Fel- 
lowships in recent years have won them, though the officials of the 
Woodrow Wilson program report that "the majority of the almost 
9,000 nominees . . . deserve encouragement, and most of them 
actually do not have enough money to go to graduate school." 27 
While about 274 Woodrow Wilson and National Defense Fellow- 
ships were available for graduate study in history in 1960-1961, 
they supported only a fraction of the first-year history graduate 
students (probably about two thousand in the Ph.D. -training de- 
partments alone) . 28 

Financial need is, of course, a relative condition. It is important 
to emphasize, therefore, that graduate students in history are 
stipend-poor in comparison with other graduate students, especially 
those in the natural sciences. (The term "stipend" here means a 
grant that is not to be repaid and that involves either no services 
at all or only services that contribute to professional training, e.g., 
part-time research and teaching.) The NORC study of graduate 
students in 1958-1959 speaks of the "disadvantaged position" of 
history students as "the group with fewest academic sources of in- 
come available to them." Table 3-4 compares the financial status 
of some three hundred history students with that of students in 
other disciplines in the NORC survey. 

Data released in mid- 1961 by Dr. John L. Chase of the U.S. 
Office of Education show that grants made by individual univer- 
sities (139 reporting) to graduate students in the social sciences and 
humanities were on the average several hundred dollars lower than 
grants to students in other disciplines. These data (which include 
tuition fellowships) reported a total of $1,482,357 was available in 
the nation for history fellowships in 1959-1960. This is enough to 
provide 927 fellowships of $1,600 for study in history. More money 
was available for graduate study in chemistry, physics, mathematics, 

^Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, Report for 1959, 71. 
28 The Ph.D. -training departments in 1958-1959 reported 3,256 master's 
candidates in residence. Perhaps 2,000 of them were first-year students. 



GRADUATE STUDENTS IN HISTORY 



49 



Table 3-4 
Financial Conditions of Graduate Students, 1958-1959 



Financial condition 



Holding scholarship 

Holding teaching assistantship or fel- 
lowship 

Holding research assistantship 

Having no income from stipend (excluding 
veteran's benefits) 

Having tuition plus $1,000 or more from 
nonduty stipend 

Receiving financial aid from parents 

Receiving some income from investments . . 

Holding a job 

Job only source of support 

Having no savings available 

Own automobile 

Not very worried about immediate financial 
condition 

Optimistic about long-run financial condi- 
tion 

Expect to need 7 years or more to get Ph.D. 



History 

sample 

(about 

300) 



36% 

18% 
2% 



21% 
24% 
19% 
43% 
33% 
27% 
60% 

48% 

29% 

47% 



Other 

social 

sciences 

(about 

640) 



37% 

21% 
17% 

45% 

22% 
23% 
12% 
40% 
24% 
24% 
67% 

51% 

44% 
40% 



Total 
sample 
(about 
2,750) 



35% 

28% 
16% 

39% 

24% 
22% 
14% 
35% 
21% 
24% 
67% 

53% 

42% 

38% 



source: Data from Joe L. Spaeth, "Graduate Students in History," mimeo- 
graphed report prepared by the National Opinion Research Center, University 
of Chicago, for the American Historical Association, 1958-1959. 

English-and-dramatic-art, psychology, and Education. Fields ex- 
cept those just cited received less fellowship aid than history (and 
all of them except agriculture-forestry produced fewer Ph.D.s in 
1958) . History, with 3.5 % of the 1959 Ph.D.s in all fields, obtained 
4.2% of the fellowship aid; political science, with 2.0% of the 
Ph.D.s, got 2.8% of the aid; mathematics, with 2.7% of the Ph.D.s, 
got7.1%oftheaid. 28a 

Ba John L. Chase, Doctoral Study: Fellowships and Capacity of Graduate 
Schools. (Washington, 1961), 18, 48, 64-65. 



50 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



Table 3-5 

Stipends Held by Graduate Students in 
Selected Disciplines, 1958-1959 



Discipline 


% of all students in 

discipline holding one 

or more stipends 


% of stipend students 

with stipends of $2,000 

or more for 9 months 


Botany. . . 


89 

79 
78 
53 

49 
47 
45 
45 
34 


53 


Chemistry 


63 


Physics 


60 


English 


29 


Sociology 


29 


Philosophy 


45 


Economics 


44 


Political science 

History 


30 
27 



source: Compiled by National Opinion Research Center, University of 
Chicago: Joe L. Spaeth, "Graduate Students in History," Mimeographed re- 
port prepared for the American Historical Association, 1958-1959. 

Table 3-5, compiled by the NORC, shows even more vividly 
how inadequately graduate study in history is financed. 29 Other 
NORC statistics show that history students compare favorably 
with others in the holding of scholarships but less often hold teach- 
ing and — especially — research assistantships. 

The result is that great numbers of history graduate students 
must work full time — often in nonacademic services. A survey of 
143 recent Ph.D.s in history by the Southern Regional Education 

28 This is borne out by Gropper and Fitzpatrick, Who Goes to Graduate 
School?, 51. It is possible that both this and the NORC survey fail to report 
instructorships held by some history students who might not think of them 
as "stipends." But the number of these instructorships is not great enough to 
alter very significantly the relative financial condition of graduate students as 
reported in tables 3-4 and 3-5. The general NORC report, completed in 1960, 
confirms the conclusion that history students in 1958-1959 were probably re- 
ceiving "the least support of any field of study in graduate school." (From 
James A. Davis and others, "The Financial Situation of American Arts and 
Science Graduate Students," mimeographed report, National Opinion Research 
Center [Chicago, 1960], 82.) 



GRADUATE STUDENTS IN HISTORY 51 

Board (SREB) has shown that 89% did one year or more of full- 
time work during the period between award of A.B. and Ph.D. 
and that half (51%) worked full time for six years or more be- 
tween A.B. and Ph.D. The periods worked by history Ph.D. can- 
didates — mostly as college teachers — were on an average longer 
than the periods worked by Ph.D. candidates in all but one other 
discipline (English) among more than 15 disciplines covered in the 
SREB survey. 

Full-time work is the major delaying factor in prolonged Ph.D. 
programs. Of the 1958 Ph.D.s who were thirty-six years of age 
or more upon award of the degree, half (52%) cite full-time work 
as the chief cause of delay. Objective statistics support their opin- 
ion: 54% of the total sample of 1958 Ph.D.s report that they 
worked full time for more than one academic year between begin- 
ning graduate study and award of the Ph.D.; and 73% of those 
who finished after thirty-five years of age report having done so. 
Prolonged part-time work also takes its toll. Part-time teaching 
by graduate students is valuable experience, but the delay in Ph.D. 
programs that is caused by more than one or two years of it is 
undesirable. 

Altogether almost two-thirds of the history Ph.D.s of 1958 
(65%) report having done full-time or part-time work as inde- 
pendent teachers, leaders of discussion sections, or assistants in 
grading papers while working toward the Ph.D. Another 9 % served 
as research assistants. Others performed a wide variety of services 
as library assistants, dormitory counselors, assistant editors, pro- 
fessional writers, machinists, recreation supervisors, piano teachers, 
grocery clerks, operators of businesses, preachers, or in a number 
of other capacities. At least one Ph.D. of 1957 found lodging in a 
District of Columbia jail (in return for services!) in order to carry 
out research at the Library of Congress. 

Even with part-time or full-time work, almost one-third (30%) 
of the history Ph.D.s of 1958 emerged from graduate school in 
debt. They most often borrowed from their families; but 6.6% of 
the total sample of 182 Ph.D.s borrowed money from commercial 
agencies, and 5.5% borrowed from their graduate schools. Two 
out of £.\e (44%) of those who borrowed obtained noninterest 



52 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

loans, but 20% paid interest at 5% or more. Two-thirds (66%) 
could repay their loans in installments "whenever possible." 

Will Durant has pungently suggested that more than a revival 
of antiquity was needed to make the Renaissance, that "first of 
all it took money — smelly bourgeois money." 30 It will take more 
of the same to meet the demands of graduate education in history 
during the next decade. The need for stipends for research and 
teaching assistantships has already been suggested. The armed serv- 
ices could appropriately provide fellowships if they were to send 
many of their new ROTC officers to graduate schools for their 
required active duty assignments; graduate study in history and 
other social sciences would be excellent training for future intelli- 
gence and staff officers. Graduate schools that have not already 
done so need to make noninterest loans available to graduate stu- 
dents. 

The graduate schools, the national foundations, and the Federal 
government might all consider the merits of establishing a system 
of "loan-scholarships" in which a large portion of loans to students 
would be canceled upon successful completion of the Ph.D. Such 
grants would have the advantage of being equally available to 
students in all disciplines. They would provide strong incentive to 
complete the Ph.D. and to complete it with all proper speed. Some 
graduate faculty members fear that students would not be attracted 
by loan-scholarships, but experience at Tulane University with non- 
interest loans (with no part canceled) suggests that this fear is 
partly without foundation. 31 The attitude of the 1958 history 
Ph.D.s toward the loan-scholarship idea is also reassuring. They 
were asked if they would have borrowed money for a year of full- 
time work on the Ph.D. dissertation, with no interest, 30% of the 
indebtedness to be canceled upon successful completion of the Ph.D. 
degree and repayment of the outstanding indebtedness within ten 
years after borrowing the money. Two-thirds of the respondents 
answered "yes" to this question. 

80 Will Durant, The Renaissance: A History of Civilization in Italy from 
13 04-1576 A.D. (New York, 1953), 67. 
31 Berelson, Graduate Education, 243. 



GRADUATE STUDENTS IN HISTORY 53 

Loan -scholarships should not take the place of service-free fel- 
lowships for the best Ph.D. candidates in history; on the contrary, 
more of them are urgently needed. Berelson has predicted that "the 
main costs of graduate study over the next years will . . . have to 
be borne by the Federal government." 32 He will be proven right 
unless the graduate schools and the national foundations make 
even more generous provisions for financing graduate education 
than they have made in the past. 

CAREER PLANS 

The career plans of history graduate students as well as the 
modest incomes of their families must be considered in any dis- 
cussion of ways to finance graduate study. Three-fourths of the 
history graduate students surveyed by the NORC in 1958-1959 
report academic careers as their first choices, and as was reported 
in Chapter 2, 88% of the history Ph.D.s of 1958 actually filled 
academic positions. Our data are confirmed by a separate study of 
143 recent Ph.D.s in history conducted by the Southern Regional 
Education Board: 89% were employed by colleges or universities 
and 3% were employed by other educational institutions. While 
faculty salaries have improved in recent years, they cannot now 
attract sufficient numbers of superior students unless stipends for 
graduate study are offered. 

The kinds of college careers the graduate students want are even 
more noteworthy than the numbers that hope to become teachers. 
Only one -fifth aim at positions in large universities; slightly more 
than half (53%) want careers in liberal arts colleges. While 19% 
prefer research to teaching, 57% describe teaching as "intrinsically 
more satisfying" than research. 33 In response to another question in 

82 Ibid., 245. See also David D. Henry, "The Role of the Federal Government in 
Higher Education," Educational Record, XL (July, 1959), 197-202; John A. 
Perkins, "Financing Higher Education: Perspectives and Possibilities," Educa- 
tional Record, XL (April, 1959), 99-112. 

It is interesting to note that a good many persons who leave college teaching 
for other careers actually take decreases in salary in doing so. See John "W. 



54 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



Table 3-6 ■ 
Career Aims of 2,754 Graduate Students, 1958-1959 



Career 


History 
(290), 
in% 


Human- 
ities 
(513), 
in% 


Social 

sciences 

(649), 

in% 


Biolog- 
ical 

sciences 
(366), 
in% 


Physical 

sciences 

(366), 

in% 


Total 
sample 
(2,754), 

in% 


Teaching 

undergraduates .... 
Teaching graduate 

students 


44 

17 
16 

4 
21 


47 

18 
13 

1 

22 


16 

13 

28 

4 
39 


18 

10 
60 

2 
9 


15 

14 
56 

1 

14 


25 
14 


Research 


38 


Academic 

administration 

Other careers 


2 
21 



source: Joe L. Spaeth, "Graduate Students in History, mimeographed re- 
port prepared by the National Opinion Research Center for the American His- 
torical Association, 1958-1959. 

the NORC survey, graduate students in history and other disci- 
plines described their career choices. As Table 3-6 shows, under- 
graduate teaching attracts the history and humanities students far 
more than those in the social and natural sciences. 

RECRUITING 

The need to recruit graduate students more systematically and 
energetically is implicit in much of this chapter. That need has 
been recognized by virtually all disciplines. A study of political 
science pointed to the problem in 1951; physiologists in 1958 called 
recruiting the "serious deficiency" of training in their disciplines; 
the president of the American Bar Association has warned fellow 
lawyers that legal study is failing to attract its rightful share of 
students because of competition from the sciences, engineering, 
and medicine; and the Association of Medical Colleges has ex- 

Gustad, "The Choice of a Career in College Teaching," a mimeographed report 
prepared in 195 8 for the Southern Regional Education Board, 18. "We are in- 
debted to the author for providing a copy of the report. 



GRADUATE STUDENTS IN HISTORY 



55 



pressed concern about a 3 3 % drop in the number of applicants for 
admission to medical schools since 1950. History faculties would 
do well to consider the consequences reported by the medical 
schools: "The ratio of acceptances has risen, resulting in a dis- 
turbing decline in the quality of those admitted. This, in turn, has 
led to a higher rate of failure." 34 Unless historians recruit, they are 
likely to be left only the students that other disciplines do not want, 
students uninspiring to teach and often unable to complete the 
Ph.D. degree. 

The tasks of recruiting and advising potential historians about 
particular grants and graduate schools must be shared by those 
who teach and counsel high school and college students. Table 3-7 
shows the persons who "directly or indirectly" influenced the de- 



Table 3-7 

Persons Influencing Decision to Undertake Graduate 
Study in History, 182 Recent Ph.D.s 



Person 



Yes 



No 



Teacher in a small college 

Teacher in a large university 

High school teacher 

Father 

Mother 

Teacher in elementary or junior high school. 

Grandparent 

Uncle 

Another relative 

Friend of the family 

Another person 



68 


114 


55 


127 


30 


152 


18 


164 


16 


166 


7 


175 


2 


180 


2 


180 


4 


178 


5 


177 


20 


162 



34 The concern of the medical colleges is reported in the Journal of Higher 
Education, XXXI (March, 1960), 163. See also, on recruiting: Dimock and 
Hawley, Goals for Political Science, 263; Gerard, Mirror to Physiology, vii, 12, 
191-192; report of address by John D. Randall, president of the American Bar 
Association, in the New Orleans Times -Picayune, May 7, 1960. See also: Berelson, 
Graduate Education, 245-247. Trustees of the Carnegie Foundation for the 
Advancement of Teaching, "The Education of College Teachers," 7; Strothmann 
and others, The Graduate School Today and Tomorrow, 9-11. 



56 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

cisions of Ph.D.s of 1958 to undertake graduate study in history. 
The struggle for survival in graduate study would be conducted 
on a higher level, attrition there would be lower, and the interests 
of the profession would be served if professors of history played a 
more active part than they do in choosing those who seek profes- 
sional education. It would be especially helpful if students interested 
in graduate study could be persuaded to begin their preparation by 
the end of the sophomore year of undergraduate study. 

Interesting students in graduate study and advising them about 
grants and graduate schools are important beginnings in a re- 
cruiting program. A third task, that of the careful selection of 
students for admission, must be assumed by the graduate faculties. 
Elsewhere Jacques Barzun has written that "in the exertions of 
Intellect those who lack the muscles, co-ordination, and will power 
can claim no place at the training table, let alone on the playing 
field." 35 The great majority of historians on graduate faculties who 
were interviewed by the director of this study agreed that the ad- 
mission of first-year graduate students was not sufficiently rigorous, 
and that it should be made more so. 

It is, of course, impossible to devise a system that will guarantee 
the success in graduate school of every student who is admitted. 
As one critic has pointed out, available tests "cannot measure 
either a student's motivation or his ability to withstand the ordi- 
nary pressures, shocks, and temptations of life." 36 But the most 
fundamental obstacle to selectivity in most institutions has been 
the relatively small number of applicants. Thus more active re- 
cruiting would be the basic step and the chief hope for raising the 
quality of graduate students in history even if larger numbers 
of students were not needed. As Berelson has suggested, the way 
to get better students is to get more applicants. 37 

'^Jacques Barzun, The House of Intellect (New York, 1959), 94-95. 

88 Sibley, The Recruitment, Selection, and Training of Social Scientists, 22; 
George Williams, Some of My Best Friends Are Professors: A Critical Commen- 
tary on Higher Education (New York, 1958), 135. 

37 Berelson, Graduate Education, 145. For suggestive material on recruiting 
students for teaching see Ruth E. Eckert and others, "College Faculty Members 



GRADUATE STUDENTS IN HISTORY 57 

Undergraduate teachers in both colleges and universities readily 
recognize the specifically historical qualities of mind that a gradu- 
ate student in history should possess. He certainly needs to have 
learned that change is the one immutable law of history and the 
unique subject matter of history courses; that most historical 
change has been gradual rather than revolutionary. He should also 
know that historical changes are accomplished by multiple causes, 
whether he is concerned with the fall of the Roman Empire or the 
outcome of the Yalta Conference. While sensitive to the dominant 
features of an age, he should give full allowance to the complex 
character of every historical period, whether colonial America, 
the era of the Industrial Revolution in England, or the Nazi era 
in Germany. He should show some awareness of the ambiguous 
legacies that historical forces leave to the future, recognizing that 
both authoritarian and democratic impulses flowed from Calvinism, 
Marxism, and the New Deal. 

The potential graduate student also should possess some essential 
personal traits. Remembering Leo Tolstoy's mocking flattery that 
"history would be an excellent thing if only it were true," 38 he 
must seek absolute honesty as his indispensable guide to a realistic 
view of history. It is well for him to be reminded of the noble ad- 
monition that "history that is not entirely honest is entirely con- 
temptible, degrading to the writer and fraudulent and pernicious 
in its influence upon public opinion." 39 If he has shown a certain 
balance of courage, tolerance, and modesty, then so much the 
better; for he should early begin to do what Alfred North White- 
head once said a professor should do: "exhibit himself in his own 
true character — that is, as an ignorant man thinking, actively 
utilizing his small store of knowledge." 40 

View Their Jobs," American Association of University Professors Bulletin, XLV 
(December, 1959), 513-528. 

38 Quoted by Isaiah Berlin, The Hedgehog and the Fox (New York, 1957) , 25. 

39 William Harbutt Dawson, The German Empire, 1867-1914, and the Unity 
Movement, 2 vols. (New York, 1919), I, x. 

40 Alfred North Whitehead, The Aims of Education and Other Essays (New 
York, 1929), 58. 



58 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

Obviously these traits in students cannot be bought; but students 
who possess them cannot be expected to use their rare qualities in 
sacrificial rites lasting a lifetime. The most important weapon his- 
torians could use in recruiting superior undergraduates would be a 
drastic improvement in faculty salaries. A second would be out- 
standing college teaching. The teacher of history must exemplify 
the mental qualities he hopes to find in the best of his students. In- 
formal advice and inspiration from individual professors has been 
helpful in the past and will be helpful in the future. 

More systematic efforts to recruit students can also be made. 
Dickinson College invites speakers in various fields to lecture to 
undergraduates about careers in teaching. Harvard University in 
1958 created a faculty committee on teaching as a career. Some 
graduate schools send faculty members to visit colleges in their 
regions in order to discuss graduate training with able students. 
High school students can be made aware of the possibilities of col- 
lege teaching as a career. 41 The development of programs for su- 
perior college students can aid in recruiting future college teach- 
ers. 42 Through history clubs able students can be made aware of the 
possibilities of graduate study and careers as teachers of history. 
Service as undergraduate research or teaching assistants is known 
to have influenced the decision of many students to undertake 
teaching as a career, and these assistantships might well be ex- 
panded. 43 

41 Cf . Dimock and Hawley, Goals for Political Science, 243 ; Gerard, Mirror 
to Physiology, 191-192. High school teachers can do much to "recruit" po- 
tential graduate students by making history challenging, intellectually exciting, 
and meaningful. The publications of the American Historical Association's Ser- 
vice Center for Teachers of History can help in this. See, e.g., W. Burlie Brown, 
United States History: A Bridge to the World of Ideas, one of the booklets in 
the AHA series (Washington, 1960). Asked to name persons who influenced 
their decisions to undertake graduate study in history, one-sixth of the Ph.D.s of 
195 8 named "a high school teacher." 

42 See, e.g., George R. Waggoner, "The Development of Programs for the Su- 
perior Student in Large Universities," Educational Record, XL (October, 1959), 
319-325. 

"Gropper and Fitzpatrick, Who Goes to Graduate School?, 44; Woodrow 
Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, Report for 1959, 69. 



GRADUATE STUDENTS IN HISTORY 59 

Programs that reach many students have been operated at the 
University of Pittsburgh and at Tulane University in recent years. 
In these institutions multiple committees of faculty members iden- 
tify, encourage, and advise undergraduate students who show 
promise as scholars during their freshman, sophomore, or junior 
years. Early attention to the possibilities of a teaching career en- 
ables students to achieve proper undergraduate preparation for 
graduate study. Furthermore, as a result of these recruiting pro- 
grams it is possible to recommend the best-prepared seniors for the 
various scholarship competitions. Officials of the Woodrow Wilson 
program have expressed the hope that the "Pittsburgh Plan" might 
become a model for similar recruiting efforts, "especially at larger 



SUMMARY 

History faculties are getting some very good graduate students, 
but they have no cause to be complacent. The best graduate stu- 
dents are too often attracted to disciplines that offer more lucrative 
stipends for study and financially more profitable careers. 

Graduate students in history come from upwards of six-hundred 
colleges, some large and some small. They have diverse socio-cul- 
tural backgrounds and their families seldom have high incomes. 
Because of these factors and the relatively low salaries that have 
been offered in the past to teachers — which most of them become — 
history students need stipends to finance graduate study. It is of 
the greatest importance that additional financial support for 
fellowships, research assistantships, and teaching assistantships be 
found. Loan-scholarships would be helpful supplements, but they 
alone are not sufficient. History students should be offered as 
generous support for graduate study as students in other disciplines 
are given, for the significance of their work is not to be denied. 

** The Tulane program is cited as exemplary by Berelson, Graduate Education, 
246, and by Frederick W. Ness, The Role of the College in the Recruitment of 
Teachers (Washington, 195 8), 62-63. For an account of the somewhat similar 
plan at Pittsburgh see Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, Report 
for 1959, 49-50. 



60 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

An age of striking accomplishments in science and technology must 
have scholars and citizens who face the past without fear as well 
as those who fearlessly face the future, unless it wishes to confront 
tomorrow with only the cheap courage that arises from unreason 
and lack of knowledge. 

Without adequate financial support for graduate study in history, 
greater efforts by historians to recruit graduate students are likely 
to be both embarrassing and relatively unsuccessful. But if increased 
financial aid and higher professional salaries than have been common 
in the past can be won, the number and quality of graduate stu- 
dents in history can easily be increased to meet the needs of the 
1960s. 

"Why," Boyd Shafer has asked, "should anyone take up a pro- 
fession that pays . . . less in a lifetime than a cheap ballad singer 
gets for one hastily-made platter of vulgar songs?" He provided a 
large part of his answer when he added: "And yet, . . . teachers 
... are paid for doing what they want most of all to do: teaching, 
reading, research, writing, continuing to learn." 

We owe it to our students to tell them that there are many ways 
of being made rich by one's work. 45 

45 Boyd C. Shafer, "The Teacher and the Taught," an address delivered at 
Dickinson College in 1959. 



Chapter 4 
HISTORY IN THE COLLEGES 



The colleges are the academic destination as well as the academic 
origin of many graduate students. Fifty-three per cent of the his- 
tory graduate students of 1958-1959 aspire to teach in liberal arts 
colleges. Seven out of ten of the Ph.D.s in history in the nation 
actually do teach in colleges and junior colleges. 1 

How do the colleges discover teaching talent and how important 
is it to them? How well trained are their faculties? What are their 
working conditions? What kinds of history do they teach? What 
teaching methods do they use? What special attention do they give 
to history majors? The graduate faculties need to know the answers 
to these questions. In attempting to find them, this study has relied 
upon letters from 134 college executives and questionnaires com- 
pleted by the chairmen of history departments in 126 "better- than- 
average" four-year colleges, 376 "typical" colleges (some very good 
ones and a great many more that are not outstanding in prestige), 
and 5 1 junior colleges (see Appendixes A, B, C, and D) . 2 

x Our survey of 3,072 members of history faculties holding the Ph.D. shows 
that 62% teach in colleges and junior colleges. The sample included virtually 
all Ph.D. -training faculties but failed to include a large number of college and 
junior college faculties. Thus it is probable that 70% is a more accurate estimate 
of history Ph.D.s in the colleges than 62%. 

2 Our samples include 56% of all the colleges and universities that in 1957- 
195 8 granted bachelor's degrees in history, and 12% of those that granted them in 
"social science." 

About 28% of the 1,937 institutions of higher learning in the United States 

61 



62 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

THE IMPORTANCE OF TEACHING ABILITY 

There can be no doubt that the college executives, in appointing 
new Ph.D.s in history, want capable teachers. Two-thirds of the 
college officials consulted in this study rate evidence of teaching 
competence as more important than promise in research scholarship 
when they consider candidates for teaching positions. The three 
qualities they most often mention are "good personal traits," actual 
teaching experience, and evidence of enthusiasm for one's field 
and for teaching. Recent history Ph.D.s agree that these are valua- 
ble traits. Table 4-1 shows the qualities that were most often rated 
as good and as bad traits by the history Ph.D.s of 1958. 3 

All graduate schools can comment to a potential employer on 
the strengths and weaknesses of their Ph.D. candidates in some of 
the qualities mentioned in Table 4-1. But graduate faculties that 
have not observed the capacity for teaching of their candidates 
cannot very well comment on a number of the traits in which 
college employers are interested. The president of a state college 
writes that "the qualifications with which we are most concerned 
are the ones that are the most difficult on which to find specific 

may be called "junior colleges." About 4% offer the Ph.D. degree in history. 
The remaining 1,306 institutions are four-year colleges (many of which offer 
master's degrees). These may be grouped by the following types: 7% are pri- 
marily teacher preparatory colleges; 16% are professional or technical schools; 
and 998 (76%) are public, private, or sectarian liberal arts colleges. These 998 
— we will call them colleges of a "general type" — make up 52% of all the 1,937 
colleges and universities in the nation. 

About 26% of all the institutions of higher learning in the United States are 
private and nonsectarian; another 25% are Protestant; 14% are Roman Catho- 
lic; and 0.3% are Jewish. The remaining 3 5% are public institutions. Our 
samples represent all of these types of institution, as tabulated by the U.S. 
Office of Education (Theresa Birch Wilkins, ed.), Education Directory, 1957- 
1958, Part III of Higher Education (Washington, 1957), 1-11. 

3 For suggestive comments on the qualities of good and poor teachers in the 
schools see David G. Ryans, Characteristics of Teachers: Their Description, Com- 
parison, and Appraisal, A Research Study (Washington, 1960), 343-367 



HISTORY IN THE COLLEGES 63 

Table 4-1 

Good and Poor Teachers: Appraisals by 182 Recent History Ph.D.s 

Qualities considered good* Qualities considered -poor* 

1. Knowledge of history 1. Inability to communicate 

2. Enthusiasm for history 2. Inability to arouse interest of 

3. Ability to communicate ideas student- in history or enthusi- 

and facts asm for it 

4. Ability to inspire interest in and 3. Lack of skill as formal lecturer 

enthusiasm for history 4. Lack of general knowledge 

5. Intellectual curiosity 5. Lack of enthusiasm for history 

6. General knowledge 6. Lack of intellectual curiosity 

7. Exacting standards 7. Low standards 

8. Sympathetic treatment of 8. Dogmatism 

students 9. Lack of knowledge of history 

9. Personal qualities 10. Preoccupation with research to 
10. Skill as formal lecturer the neglect of teaching 

* Listed in order of the frequency with which these qualities are mentioned 
by the history Ph.D.s of 1958. 

evidence." 4 Letters from graduate faculties, often vague about the 
teaching capacity of candidates, are rated by one-third of the col- 
lege departments as "not especially helpful." 

Thus, in a large majority of the colleges, one, two, or three can- 
didates are interviewed by the screening authorities before an ap- 
pointment is made. In a few cases — six or seven college executives 
mention this — the candidate is asked to teach a class, give a lecture, 
or conduct a seminar. Several colleges and universities have devel- 
oped more or less formal and intensive orientation programs for 
newly appointed instructors. These include the Air Force Acad- 
emy, Amherst College, Hunter College, East Carolina College, 
Southern Illinois University, Colgate University, Temple Univer- 

On this lack of evidence about teaching capacity see comments by L. S. 
Woodburne, Faculty Personnel Policies in Higher Education (New York, 1950) ; 
M. R. Trabue, "Characteristics Desirable in College Teachers," Journal of Higher 
Education, XXV (April, 1954), 201-204. For additional literature on the evalua- 
tion of teachers see Eells (ed.), College Teachers and College Teaching, 151-164. 



64 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

sity, Occidental College, and the State University of South Dakota. 
Probably many other institutions have special programs for new- 
teachers during which their capacities for classroom teaching can 
be discovered or developed. 5 

About 17% of the college executives report that it is standard 
practice to carry out direct observation of new teachers in their 
classrooms, and two-fifths of the responding departments say this 
is sometimes done. The president of a large Eastern institution 
writes that "each non-tenure appointee is visited at least once a 
semester by each of our five Executive Committee members." Some 
others admit that departmental chairmen use less reliable devices 
in "getting a line" on the new teacher. About one-third of the 
college executives and four-fifths of the history departments state 
that formal or informal student ratings play a role in evaluation 
of teachers. Most indirectly, enrollment trends are taken as evidence 
of student attitudes; 37% of the history departments report that 
enrollments are usually regarded as one index of a teacher's com- 
petence. 

SCHOLARLY QUALIFICATIONS OF TEACHERS 

It is obvious that the colleges are in search of good teachers. What 
they hope for has been eloquently described in ideal terms by Harry 
J. Carman: "teachers who are persons of attractive personality, in- 
sight, sensitiveness, and perspective . . . moral strength, a sense 
of beauty of spirit, the seeing eye, the watchful soul, the inquiring 
mind . . . teachers who are free of conventional prejudices and 
fears, and who are articulate and skilled in conversation . . . [and 
who] derive great satisfaction from assisting students to see the 
relationship between learning and life." 6 But even these qualities 

5 A strong argument can be made that the college is obligated to provide in- 
service training for the new teacher. See Elmer Ellis, "Making Competent Teach- 
ers of New Instructors," Journal of Higher Education, XXV (April, 1954), 
204-206. 

6 In Theodore C. Blegen and Russell M. Cooper (eds.), The Preparation of 
College Teachers: Report of a Conference Held at Chicago, Illinois, December 



HISTORY IN THE COLLEGES 65 

alone are not enough. The college executives also want solidly 
trained research scholars. Thus 29% consider capacity for research 
scholarship more important than teaching capacity in appointing 
new instructors, and all of the 65% who consider teaching com- 
petence more important than capacity for research scholarship 
emphasize that they look for both these traits. This is in harmony 
with the reports of department heads on the criteria used in making 
appointments. 

How successful are the college executives and department heads 
in their search for scholar-teachers? The number of historians, the 
degrees they hold, and their years of experience are not guarantees 
of scholarly competence; rather they are valuable indices of it. 
Using these indices it is possible to compare the strength of history 
faculties in junior colleges, "typical" four-year colleges, and four- 
year colleges of higher prestige. 

The most obvious difference in the status of history among these 
institutions is in the average number of historians per institution. 
The 126 better colleges report 1,103 historians as members of their 
regular faculties in 1958-1959, an average of 8.8 historians per 
college. The random sample of 376 four-year colleges report 4.9 
historians per college, and the junior colleges report an average 
of 3.8 per institution. Quantity is not always a valid index of 
quality, but the departments with larger numbers of historians can 
offer courses taught by specialists in more areas of history than small 
faculties can competently teach. 

How well qualified are the teachers of history? Notwithstanding 
the fact that two-thirds of the students who enroll in junior colleges 
expect to transfer to four-year institutions (one-third actually do 
so 7 ), the junior college history teachers are much less often fully 

8-10, 1949, Sponsored by the American Council on Education and the U.S. 
Office of Education (Washington, 1950), 18. Ibid., 62, offers a more prosaic 
but useful statement of the qualities of a good teacher. For other suggestive 
statements about the qualities of excellent teachers see Knapp and Goodrich, 
Origins of American Scientists, 249-25 8; list by M. R. Trabue in Journal of 
Teacher Education, II (June, 1951), 136. 

7 For this and other data on junior colleges see Leland L. Medsker, The Junior 
College: Progress and Prospects (New York, 1960), 97. 



66 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



trained Ph.D.s than are the instructors of either the typical or the 
better four-year colleges. The master's degree is the highest held 
by two-thirds of the history instructors in the junior colleges in our 
sample. It is heartening to note, however, that those faculty mem- 
bers who hold the Ph.D. — 22% — are twice as numerous as those 
who have only the bachelor's degree. 8 The situation in the four- 
year colleges is much better. No less than 5 8 % of the faculty mem- 
bers in the history departments in our sample of typical colleges 
and 71% of those in our sample of better colleges hold the Ph.D. 
Other differences can be shown in the scholarly potential of the 
history faculties in the two samples of four-year colleges. We asked: 
"Can a teacher who does not have the doctor's degree be appointed 
to your history faculty?" Flat "yes" answers were reported by 
62% of all 502 four-year colleges, as Table 4-2 shows. But 30% 

Table 4-2 

Appointment of History Teachers with Less than the 
Ph.D. in 502 Colleges, 1958-1959 



Group 


% saying "yes" 


% saying ' 'yes, but only 
temporarily" 


Na- 
tion 


East 


South 


Mid- 
west 


West 


Na- 
tion 


East 


South 


Mid- 
west 


West 


Sample of 376 typi- 
cal colleges 

Sample of 126 better 
colleges 


67 

47 
62 


72 

47 
66 


75 

53 

69 


59 

42 
55 


56 

45 
52 


30 

46 
34 


26 

47 
31 


22 

37 
26 


36 

52 
39 


41 

50 


Total sample of 502 


44 



of the "typical" four-year colleges and 46% of the better-known 
colleges say "only as a temporary measure." 

The better the college, the more likely that its instructors are 
teaching in the field of history in which they specialized in grad- 
uate school. In 55% of the typical four-year colleges at least one 

8 See National Education Association, Teacher Supply and Demand . . . 
1957-58 and 1958-59, 33-34. 



HISTORY IN THE COLLEGES 67 

history instructor in 1957-1959 taught "chiefly" outside his major 
field of history in graduate school (an example would be that of 
a specialist in modern European history teaching chiefly United 
States history). But only one-eighth of all the instructors in the 
better colleges were teaching "chiefly" outside their major fields. 
Half the departments in these better colleges report that they do 
not appoint instructors to teach chiefly outside their major fields 
of graduate study. In the junior colleges, on the other hand, nine- 
tenths of the departments we surveyed reported at least one history 
instructor teaching chiefly outside his major field of history. 

One form of experience — travel in the area of specialization — 
is especially important for those faculty members who teach the 
history of foreign areas. Two-fifths (42%) of the history instruc- 
tors in the better colleges teach "primarily" the history of foreign 
areas. Of these, 70 % have "travelled or studied in the area of their 
specialization within the last ten years"; and three-fifths (59%) 
of them have done so "within the last five years." (Fewer in the 
South and Midwest; more in the East.) More than 1 out of 10 
(12%) of those who teach the history of foreign areas in these 
colleges are foreign-born. Only 17% have "never travelled in the 
area of their specialization." (Cf. pages 117-118, below.) 

Berelson has stated that the liberal arts colleges — "except for a 
few at the top" — cannot expect to attract "the top doctoral prod- 
uct." 9 But our data suggest that all but the weakest four-year 
colleges can expect to attract Ph.D.s in history. The qualifications 
of the history faculties of America's colleges look very good on 
paper. 



WORKING CONDITIONS 

Berelson has succinctly catalogued the unattractive working 
conditions of some four-year colleges: "low salaries, poor librar- 
ies ... , high teaching load, little research opportunity, poorer 
students, poorer colleagues, extracurricular demands and restrictive 

9 Berelson, Graduate Education, 224. 



68 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

atmosphere, dead-end career line, etc.". 10 Though Berelson over- 
states the obstacles to scholarly teaching in the colleges and men- 
tions none of their advantages, his diagnosis deserves at least as 
much attention as others that blame graduate school specialization 
exclusively for the "decline of liberal education" in America. 11 
In truth, low salaries do make it difficult for many colleges to 
attract the best products of the graduate schools and hurt the pro- 
fessional spirit of those appointed to the poorly paid positions. 12 
The libraries of American colleges are hampered by financial limi- 
tations, and libraries are of direct concern to teachers of history. 
The average library budget for books and periodicals in a random 
sample of "typical" colleges in 1958-1959 was $20,737 (all disci- 
plines) and the average holding of the 10 libraries was 99,322 
volumes. 13 One college, in proportion to its size among those most 
often selected by winners of National Merit Scholarships in 1959 
and I960, 14 spent only $21,030 for books and periodicals in all 
disciplines in 1958-1959; and its total library holdings of 80,000 
volumes served an enrollment of 1,745 students. Library holdings 
are especially inadequate in the history of foreign areas. 15 

More directly, the heavy teaching loads in most colleges cause 
history instructors to give hostages to fortune as teachers. Well- 

10 Ibid. 

11 McGrath, The Graduate School and the Decline of Liberal Education, passim. 

12 The data for comparison of salaries are available in the American Association 
of University Professors Bulletin, XL VI (June, 1960), 156-193. See also Eckert 
and others, "College Faculty Members View Their Jobs," 525; Louis A. D'Amico, 
"Salaries of College and University Professors by Rank, Institutional Size, and 
Control," Educational Record, XLI (October, 1960), 300-305. 

"The data were found in Irwin (ed.), American Universities and Colleges, 8th 
ed., under the descriptions of the sample colleges. The sample of typical colleges 
included: Elmira, Franklin and Marshall, Kent State, Loyola (Los Angeles), 
Macalester, Maryland State Teachers (Frostburg), Mississippi College, Univer- 
sity of Richmond, Wells, and Whitman. 

14 National Merit Scholarship Corporation, Recognizing Exceptional Ability 
Among America's Young People: Fourth Annual Report, 1959 (Evanston, 111., 
n.d. [I960?]), 19. 

18 See, e.g., Robert F. Byrnes (ed.), The Non-Western Areas in Undergraduate 
Education in Indiana (Bloomington, Ind., 1959), 19. 



HISTORY IN THE COLLEGES 



69 



trained, experienced teachers should be able to do fine jobs of teach- 
ing in an assignment of two separate courses, three sections, and 
a total enrollment of 70 to 100 students. 16 The controversial report 
by Beardsley Ruml and Donald Morrison would not have a teacher 
do more than this. 17 Unfortunately, however, the overwhelming 
majority of history teachers in the nation's colleges are already do- 
ing considerably more. Even in the better colleges, the "normal" 
load is 12 hours (mean, 11.3), and one-fourth (27%) of the his- 
tory instructors teach more than 12-hour loads (see Table 4-3). 



Table 4-3 

Teaching Loads of 1,007 History Teachers in 126 
Better Colleges, First Term of 1958-1959 



Hours of teaching 


% of faculty 


teaching ' 


various loads 


per week 


Nation 


East 


South 


Midwest 


West 


Some but less than 6 

6-8 
9-10 
Total under 10 


4 
10 
14 
28 


3 

12 
19 

34 


2 
8 
10 
20 


7 
9 
9 

25 


7 
9 
15 
31 


11-12 


45 


42 


45 


37 


55 


13-15 
More than 15 
Total over 13 


22 
J 

27 


22 
1 

23 


31 
_5 

36 


23 
14 

37 


11 

2 

13 



Two-thirds (63%) of the history Ph.D.s of 1958 report that three 
or more separate course preparations are normally required in their 
history departments, and this sample included many instructors 

18 See, e.g., H. K. Newburn, "Faculty Personnel Policies in State Universities" 
(multilithed for limited distribution by President Newburn, Montana State Uni- 
versity, October, 1959), 127-129. 

17 Ruml and Morrison, Memo to a College Trustee, 27-44. For other literature 
on class size see Eells (ed.), College Teachers and College Teaching, 143-144. 



70 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



in universities with relatively light loads; 62% of the history Ph.D.s 
of 1958 were teaching more than 100 students each in 1958-1959, 
and one-tenth (9%) were teaching more than 200 students each 
(see also Table 4-4). Only 18% of the history Ph.D.s of 1958 

Table 4-4 

Average Sizes of History Classes at Various Levels 
in 126 Colleges, 1956-1957 and 1958-1959 



Type of 
course 



Introductory, 
U.S 

Introductory, 
other 

Advanced under- 
graduate, U.S... 

Advanced under- 
graduate, other 

Advanced under- 
graduate and 
graduate 

Exclusively grad- 
uate students. . . 



National 
sample of 

profes- 
sional and 
teachers' 
colleges 



1956 1958 



31 30 

31 31 

22 24 

20 21 

22 19 

13 13 



Regional averages of 
liberal arts colleges 



East 


South 


Midwest 


1956 1958 


1956 


1958 


1956 


1958 


30 29 


35 


34 


45 


37 


27 26 


33 


34 


43 


42 


22 21 


26 


24 


24 


25 


19 20 


21 


23 


20 


22 


21 23 


19 


18 


22 


23 


15 16 


7 


8 


7 


8 







West 


1956 


1958 


47 


52 


42 


47 


20 


24 


20 


24 


17 


20 


7 


7 



National 
averages, 

all 
colleges 



1956 1958 

37 36 

35 36 

23 24 

20 22 

21 21 
10 10 



found positions in departments where the normal teaching load 
was 9 hours or less per week. 

Some critics of research argue that teachers with heavy loads 
could still teach well if they did not slight students in favor of 
footnotes and publications. 18 We asked many questions about this 

18 See, e.g., Carnegie Corporation of New York Quarterly, Supplement (April, 
1960) for comment by Harry Carman; Ruml and Morrison, Memo to a College 
Trustee, 8; McGrath, The Graduate School and the Decline of Liberal Educa- 
tion, passim; Theodore Caplow and Reece J. McGee, The Academic Marketplace 
(New York, 195 8), 225 and passim; "Williams, Some of My Best Friends Are 
Professors, 206. 



HISTORY IN THE COLLEGES 71 

issue. Of the 1958 history Ph.D.s teaching in colleges, only two- 
fifths (39%) report that some publication is usually required for 
promotion to a full professorship in their colleges. The department 
heads in an equal percentage of the better colleges report that 
"some scholarly publication" is usually expected for promotion to 
a full professorship. Conversely, heads of four-fifths (82%) of 
the departments in our sample of better colleges report that teach- 
ing and other duties consume so much time that they interfere with 
the development of history teachers as research scholars, and 88% 
of these department heads told us that the research demanded of 
faculty members does not interfere with teaching. 

Other data support the conclusion that history teachers seldom 
sacrifice good teaching for research. Three-fourths (74%) of the 
history Ph.D.s of 1958 say that in their institutions good teaching 
is demanded, and two-fifths (39%) say it is demanded even "more 
than research and writing." Only 18% say good teaching is de- 
manded "considerably less" than research and writing or that it 
simply is "not demanded." Conversely, only 6% of the 1958 
Ph.D.s report that the amount of publication expected by their 
institutions is "unreasonable"; 39% say no publication is required 
for promotion in their institutions. 

In some of the colleges the history faculties need to be engaged 
in more research than is now possible. For condemnations of re- 
search in the colleges usually ignore the fact that there are other 
students than undergraduates in many of them. A large percentage 
of the better colleges in our sample offer master's degrees in history 
(see Chapter 5, below). As a result, 44% of the history teachers 
in the better colleges and 2 3 % of those in the more typical colleges 
teach graduate students as well as undergraduates. In the combined 
sample of 502 colleges, some graduate-level teaching is done by 
42% of the 1,852 history faculty members holding the Ph.D. 
degree. These percentages must be remembered in considering the 
proper emphasis to place upon research scholarship in the graduate 
training of college teachers. It is going too far to argue that histo- 
rians who are "not actively engaged in contributing to their own 
knowledge and testing the results of their own researches by fre- 



72 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

quent publication are failing in their duty to their college, their 
students, and their profession." 19 But there seems to be little basis 
for the widespread belief that college teachers live under such great 
pressure to do research that they neglect their teaching. In point 
of fact, heavy work loads handicap their efforts both as scholars 
and as teachers. 

Several things can be done to promote scholarly teaching in the 
colleges. When the teaching-hour burden is heavy and very large 
numbers of students must be taught by one person, a good many 
colleges provide student assistants or secretarial help to the faculty. 
One institution in our sample of better colleges reports that each 
history teacher is provided with 20 hours of secretarial assistance 
per week. Classes are often scheduled to provide some free time 
for scholarly effort by instructors. Half the better colleges report 
the availability of research grants or sabbaticals with pay, but only 
3.3% of the total history faculty in these 126 colleges are reported 
to have been on full-time leave in the first term of 1958-1959. At 
this rate each professor can expect a year's leave every 3 3 years, or 
half a year every 16.5 years! Ph.D. -training departments can help 
in this matter by inviting doctoral graduates teaching in the colleges 
to return for temporary assignments during a summer, a term, 
or a full academic year. Many of the wealthier colleges might well 
take note of the example of Parsons College (Iowa), which offers 
its faculty members 1 term in 3 free for postdoctoral study or 
research. In other colleges committee service can be restricted by 
making certain that only those committees that are needed are 
retained, by preventing those that exist from being unnecessarily 
large, and by making certain that faculty committees are spared 
administrative duties and allowed to concentrate upon their true 
functions: the formulation and supervision of policy. Finally, heavy 
teaching loads can be made more palatable where they cannot be 
reduced by allowing history teachers to concentrate their labor in 
fields to which they have given their years of specialization and 
their professional affections. 

"Hesseltine and Kaplan, "Doctors of Philosophy in History," 790. 



HISTORY IN THE COLLEGES 73 

WHAT HISTORY IS TAUGHT? 

The most striking fact about history courses in the colleges in 
recent years is their prevalence and their expansion. In 1958-1959 
almost one -third of the colleges in our sample were requiring more 
history for graduation than ten years earlier; only 6% of them 
were requiring less. Enrollments in history in 1958-1959 in the 
better colleges were up 9% over the 1956-1957 level. 

The types of history courses that are most commonly reported 
as graduation requirements are Western civilization, modern Eu- 
ropean history, or world history; 54% of the four-year colleges in 
our samples report one of these courses as a requirement. The pres- 
ent emphasis on American history represents the major change 
since World War II. Surveying 690 colleges and universities during 
the war, Benjamin Fine found that only 18% required a course in 
American history for graduation. At about the same time a special 
committee of the American Historical Association, the Mississippi 
Valley Historical Association, and the National Council for the 
Social Studies reported that "American history is now taught with 
sufficient frequency." 20 Yet today United States history or Ameri- 
can civilization is reported as a requirement by 3 9 % of the colleges, 
or more than twice as frequently as in 1942. 21 

There have been changes not only in requirements but also in 
history offerings and enrollments during the last decade, but the 

20 Committee on American History in Schools and Colleges of the American 
Historical Association, the Mississippi Valley Historical Association, and the Na- 
tional Council for the Social Studies (Edgar B. Wesley, director), American His- 
tory in Schools and Colleges (New York, 1944), 42, 118. 

21 A survey of 200 institutions by the U.S. Office of Education (1959) has 
shown that 48.7% require one or another history course for graduation. No other 
social science is so often required. Thus in terms of the number of students en- 
rolled and the average number of semester hours taken per student, history ranks 
higher than any other social science. See Jennings B. Sanders, Social Science Re- 
quirements for Bachelor's Degrees: A Study of Anthropology, Economics, History, 
Political Science, and Sociology in General Graduation Requirements (Washington, 
1959), 20, 65. 



74 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



Table 4-5 

Enrollment Changes in History Courses 
in 126 Four-year Colleges, 1948-1958 



Type of history course 



United States 

Medieval and modern European 

(including Western civilization) 

English-British Commonwealth . . 

Russian-East European 

World 

Asian (Near and Far East) 

Ancient 

Latin- American 

Other history courses 



% of colleges re- 


% of colleges re- 


porting enrollments 


porting enrollments 


20% higher in 1958 


20% lower in 1958 


than in 1948 


than in 1948 


54 


19 


41 


16 


13 


8 


10 


2 


8 


2 


6 





6 


3 


5 


9 


25 


6 



Table 4-6 

Changes in History Courses Offered 
by 502 Four-year Colleges, 1948-1958 



Type of history course 


% of colleges re- 
porting courses 
added 


% of colleges re- 
porting courses 
dropped 


United Statei (including state and 
regional) 


22 

20 
19 
18 
11 

7 

5 

5 

3 

2 

0.6 


5.0 


Modern European (including na- 
tional) 


4.0 


Asian (Near and Far East) 

Russian-East European 


1.0 

0.4 


Cultural-intellectual 


0.2 


English-British Commonwealth . . . 
Latin- American 


2.6 
3.6 


Economic 


1.2 


Ancient 


2.0 


Medieval 


2.4 


Military 


0.0 







HISTORY IN THE COLLEGES 75 

changes only reinforce the traditional Western-world orientation 
of history offerings (see Tables 4-5 and 4-6). The history of non- 
Western areas in the colleges looks much stronger in terms of courses 
added than in terms of enrollment increases. And courses arranged 
by topics rather than by periods or areas have become increasingly 
common during the last ten years, especially courses in cultural, in- 
tellectual, and economic history. 

United States history is offered by virtually all the colleges and 
junior colleges. Western civilization is taught by one-third (31%) 
of the junior colleges, modern European history by one-fourth 
(25%), and world history by one-fifth (22%). Diversity is, as 
might be expected, more characteristic of the four-year colleges. 
More than nine-tenths of them teach courses in modern European 
history, and the others almost invariably offer either Western 
civilization or world history. More than two-thirds teach courses 
in British and medieval history. Colleges in the South give less than 
average attention to the history of foreign areas. Colleges in the 
Midwest offer a greater variety of courses than do those in other 
regions of the nation. The types of history vary also by types of 
colleges (see Tables 4-7 and 4-8). 

It is important to note what history the colleges fail to teach, 
or teach less commonly than would be thought desirable. As Stull 
Holt has noted, military history was severely neglected before 
World War II, but since 1941 has been avidly cultivated at the 
level of creative scholarship. 22 Yet, as Tables 4-7 and 4-8 show, 
courses in military history are still rarely taught by the history 
departments in the colleges. The danger for new learning in ancient 
history is a real one; few American students develop the linguistic 
skills to specialize in ancient history in doctoral studies. Yet, while 
enrollments are often small, ancient history remains one of the 
more generally taught subdivisions of history in the colleges, as 
Tables 4-7 and 4-8 show. 23 To provide faculties capable of teach- 

22 See Holt's essay in Curti (ed.), American Scholarship in the Twentieth Cen- 
tury, 105. 

83 Cf. ibid., 100. 



76 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



Table 4-7 

History Courses Most Often Offered among 502 Colleges 
and 51 Junior Colleges, 1956-1958 (2 Years) 



Field of history 



%of 

Junior 

colleges 

reporting 

each type 

of history 



1. United States 

2. Modern European. . . 

3. English-British 

Commonwealth.. . 

4. Medieval 

5. Western civilization 

6. Diplomatic 

7. Ancient 

8. Russian or U.S.S.R.. 
9- Latin- American 

10. Far Eastern (includ- 

ing Indian) 

11. Economic 

12. Cultural-intellectual 

13- State 

14- Constitutional 

15- Historiography 

16. Methodology 

17. General education 

or broad survey 
course 

18. Religious 

19. Social 

20. World 

21. Interdisciplinary 

course 

22. Near Eastern 

23- Philosophies of 

history 

24- History of science. . . 

25. African 

26. Military 



92 
25 

12 
14 
31 

2 
10 

4 
10 



16 
6 

27 






6 

14 

2 

22 

8 
2 





4 



Nation 



96 

89 

75 
71 
69 
62 
61 
55 
54 

51 
48 
45 
40 
39 
35 
34 



30 
29 
27 
25 

24 
20 

15 
9 
6 

5 



% of four-year colleges 
reporting each type of history 



%in 
East 



97 
92 

71 
73 
68 
65 
60 
55 
48 

52 
46 
48 
37 
39 
34 
32 



29 
29 
35 
21 

23 
20 

17 

15 

5 

7 



%in 
South 



97 
91 

86 
68 
68 
60 
58 
47 
58 

39 
51 
39 
55 
31 
32 
30 



23 
22 
16 
29 

23 

18 

11 
6 
6 

7 



Midwest 



95 
90 

81 
78 
67 
69 
72 
60 
56 

58 
50 
46 
29 
44 
38 
40 



28 
38 
28 
26 

26 
20 

19 
7 
6 
1 



HISTORY IN THE COLLEGES 



77 



Table 4-8 

Variations in History Offerings by Types of Four- year 
Colleges (Sample of 376 Institutions) 



Type of history course 



United States 

Modern European 

English-British 

Commonwealth 

Medieval 

Western civilization — 

Diplomatic , 

Ancient 

Latin- American , 

Far Eastern 

Economic , 

Russian 

State 

Cultural-intellectual. . . 

Constitutional 

Methodology 

Religious 

Historiography 

General education or 

survey course 

World 

Interdisciplinary course 

Social 

Near Eastern 

Philosophies of history 

History of science 

African 

Military 



%of 
total 


% 
Profes- 
sional 
colleges 


% 
Teachers' 


% 
Colleges 

for 
Negroes 


% 
Catholic 


sample 


colleges 


colleges 


97 


83 


95 


90 


98 


91 


58 


85 


90 


94 


77 


25 


67 


81 


60 


74 


37 


57 


81 


86 


69 


75 


55 


67 


79 


64 


33 


67 


43 


66 


64 


29 


45 


67 


69 


54 


12 


67 


57 


55 


52 


17 


72 


24 


39 


50 


37 


40 


62 


55 


50 


12 


50 


29 


47 


43 


33 


75 


52 


33 


41 


29 


32 


43 


55 


36 


8 


22 


43 


55 


35 


12 


32 


43 


42 


33 


25 


12 


29 


54 


33 


4 


15 


43 


36 


30 


33 


35 


24 


26 


27 


25 


37 


38 


24 


24 


33 


17 


33 


29 


23 


8 


20 


10 


34 


20 


4 


25 


10 


16 


15 


4 


12 


14 


18 


9 


21 


2 





15 


6 


4 


5 


14 


5 


4 


21 








5 



% 

General 
colleges 

99 
95 

91 
76 
68 
68 
68 
56 
61 
50 
58 
41 
39 
33 
34 
30 
37 

32 
26 
22 
22 
23 
16 

8 

5 

3 



ing the history of non-Western areas — which is lagging — the au- 
thors of an Indiana survey have recommended joint appointments 
of one specialist by two or more colleges. The principle of sharing 
instructors among several colleges can also be used to staff courses 
in other areas of history. The principle has been applied with good 
results in the cooperative programs of Amherst-Mount Holyoke- 



78 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

Smith-University of Massachusetts in the East and Claremont- 
Occidental-Whittier-Redlands in California. 24 

The graduate schools need to train more specialists in the history 
of the non- Western areas, but Tables 4-7 and 4-8 show very clearly 
that most history Ph.D.s are desired in the traditional areas of study. 
In the nation as a whole, it appears, two-fifths (41 %) of the college 
history enrollments are in United States history. Half (49% ) of the 
enrollments are in European and English history, leaving 10% for 
all other areas. 25 

A number of questions can be raised about the level at which 
history courses are taught. Why should 46% of the colleges that 
offer medieval history teach it only at the introductory level and 
an equal number (43%) only at the advanced undergraduate and 
graduate levels? Which is right? Are both equally appropriate? 
Similar questions can be asked about ancient history, English his- 
tory, Far Eastern history, Russian history, and Latin-American 
history. Why should courses that are essentially broad surveys be 
reserved so exclusively for the advanced levels of college curricula? 
And is it not conceivable that a combined course in historical 
method and historiography — an introduction to the nature of his- 
tory — should be the introductory course offered by college history 
faculties instead of the now common survey? This would give a 

"Byrnes (ed.), The Non-Western Areas in Undergraduate Education in In- 
diana, 21, 29, 30, and passim. The inadequate offering of courses in the history 
of non-Western areas has prevailed not just in Indiana but in most parts of the 
nation. See the articles by Jennings B. Sanders in Higher Education: VI (Oct. 1, 
1949), 31-34; VI (Nov. 15, 1949), 67-70; and VI (May 1, 1950), 201-202. 
See also Fred Cole, International Relations in Institutions of Higher Education in 
the South (Washington, 195 8). The following suggest possibilities and problems 
involved in intercollege cooperation: Sidney R. Packard, "Academic Cooperation," 
Educational Record, XL (October, 1959), 3 5 8-363; C. L. Barber and others, 
The New College Plan: A Proposal for a Major Departure in Higher Education 
(Amherst, 195 8). 

25 Jennings B. Sanders, "College Social Sciences: A Statistical Evaluation with 
Special Reference to History," Higher Education, XI (April, 195 5), 109-113. 
The data we have collected suggest that the distribution of enrollments has not 
significantly changed since Sanders wrote. 



HISTORY IN THE COLLEGES 79 

degree of unity to subsequent study in history courses that in many 
colleges are highly fragmented. 26 

METHODS OF TEACHING 

After serving as president of Cornell University, Andrew D. 
White wryly recalled the kind of history instruction he had received 
at Yale in the class of 1853: "It consisted simply in hearing the 
student repeat from memory the dates from Tutz's Ancient His- 
tory.' " 27 Now it is the lecture system that is under attack. Because 
they so often consist of factual lectures, history courses have been 
described by one critic as "the university's most perfect type of 
the fact-loaded, idea-absent, academic exercise." 28 Advocates of 
educational television have answered criticism of its limitations 
upon ideal teacher-student interaction with the telling rebuttal 
that "the ideal is rarely achieved by conventional teaching 
methods." 29 Yet the lecture remains the basic form of instruction 
in which history courses are most commonly taught, and it is 
worth strongly defending as a way of alerting students quickly to 
conflicting historical interpretations and thus stimulating critical 
thought, and as a medium that can make history "come alive" as 
probably no other medium can. 

Furthermore, it is important to note that lecturing is supple- 
mented by discussion sections in many history departments. Op- 
portunities for semi-independent study are provided for students 
who are capable of profiting from independence. Parallel reading 
almost invariably accompanies lectures and textbook study, pro- 
viding opportunities for semi-independent work; on a great many 

26 McGrath, The Graduate School and the Decline of Liberal Education, vi and 
passim, blames the graduate schools too exclusively for the fragmentation of 
courses in the colleges. 

27 Quoted from Andrew Dickson White's Autobiography by W". H. Cowley in 
"College and University Teaching, 1858-1958," Educational Record, XXXIX 
(October, 1958), 311-326. 

28 Williams, Some of My Best Friends Are Professors, 226-229. 

C. R. Carpenter in Adams, Carpenter, and Smith (eds.), College Teaching 
by Television, 13-14. 



80 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

campuses history instructors make use of paperback booklets that 
present primary sources or varieties of interpretations of historical 
events, thus laying the basis for term papers or discussion sessions. 
Some history teachers use movies, slide projectors, musical record- 
ings, art illustrations, and field trips to convey to students the 
spirit of the age through which they are asked to pass vicariously. 

Methods of instruction other than the lecture are varied and, 
in the better colleges, fairly common. The freshman course in his- 
tory at Carnegie Institute of Technology, for example, has intro- 
duced students to the nature of history and to the study of primary 
sources, 30 and Antioch College also emphasizes historical method 
in the introductory history courses. 31 Reed College features small 
discussion groups, frequent conferences about written work be- 
tween teachers and individual students, and extensive reading. It 
has no textbook courses. One-tenth of the 126 better colleges we 
surveyed require history majors to take either a research seminar, 
a course in historiography, or a combination of these (see also 
Table 4-9). Wesley an University introduces history majors to one- 
term research seminars during the sophomore year. 32 A few of the 
better colleges of the nation require all history majors to write 
senior theses. Honors work involving the writing of senior theses 
is somewhat more frequently offered to outstanding majors; it is 
reported by 13% of the typical colleges, and by 28% of the better 
colleges. 

Most colleges expect to make no major changes in their methods 

80 See Department of History, Carnegie Institute of Technology (Edwin Fen- 
ton), "Teaching the First Ten Assignments in an Introductory European History 
Course." (Copies are available at 25/ each.) See also Paul L. Ward, A Style of 
History for Beginners (Washington, 1959), a publication issued by the Service 
Center for Teachers of History, American Historical Association. 

31 See Irvin Abrams, "The Historian's Craft and General Education," Journal 
of General Education, IX (October, 1955), 36-41. 

82 For a similar requirement at the junior level see Henry Reiff, "Historiography 
and Government Research: A Blended Course in History and Government at St. 
Lawrence University," Journal of Higher Education, XXII (March, 1951), 
129-137. 



HISTORY IN THE COLLEGES 



81 



Table 4-9 

Comparison of Selected Forms of History Instruction 
by Types of Colleges, 1958-1959 





% of colleges reporting each form of instruction 
offered during 1957-1958 


Form of 
instruction 


Nation 
(376) 


Profes- 
sional 
colleges 
(24) 


Teach- 
ers' 

colleges 
(40) 


Negro 
colleges 

(21) 


Cath- 
olic 
colleges 

(85) 


General 
colleges 

(206) 


Tutorial work 

Directed readings .... 
Instruction to indi- 
vidual students .... 
Seminar work 


7 
34 

11 

48 


4 
17 

21 
21 


8 
33 

10 
33 


14 
43 

10 
52 


8 
40 

6 
56 


6 
33 

12 
51 



of teaching history in order to meet rising enrollments. Three-fifths 
of the history departments will add new sections of existing courses. 
Only 2% suggest that they may use television, and less than 1% 
expect to inaugurate independent study by the students. Two out 
of five (38%) of the colleges and junior colleges plan to meet 
future enrollment increases as they have met them in the past, by 
enlarging sections. This almost certainly means that the lecture 
will remain the basic form of history instruction in most colleges. 
Colleges with large enrollments and few history teachers cannot 
offer special attention to individual students, or to small groups of 
them, no matter how convinced the history faculties are that this 
is desirable. The way to more personalized as well as more scholarly 
history teaching can be found in these colleges only through sub- 
stantial reductions in the work loads of history faculties. 



HISTORY MAJORS 

Special faculty attention to students in large introductory courses 
is understandably unusual. Most historians would agree, however, 



82 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

that it should be commonplace in the education of history majors. 
While this happy condition does not yet exist, there are encourag- 
ing signs that it is coming (see Table 4-9). 

The history major almost always requires distribution of course 
work in at least two fields — most commonly in United States and 
European history — and 10 of the 126 better colleges specify that 
majors must study in three or four fields of history. These require- 
ments are especially desirable in departments that offer many 
highly specialized history courses. To further the integration of 
historical knowledge and to fill in gaps in reading, a number of 
colleges offer special courses, seminars, or reading programs. 

The typical major program in history in the colleges offers, it 
must be admitted, much less imaginative and personalized fare and 
thus less fully prepares students for the kind of work expected by 
graduate faculties. The major program commonly requires 24 to 
30 semester hours of history (reported by three-fourths of the 
better colleges). In the colleges that offer the general social science 
major with concentration in history, the requirement is usually 
30 to 40 semester hours of courses in the social sciences. 33 Only 
one content course is usually specified as a requirement for the major 
in history, and that is the introductory course in United States 
history. (This is generally required of public school teachers by 
state law.) The United States history course has been reported to 
be a requirement for the major in 86% of a sample of 290 institu- 
tions. 34 The widespread adoption of this requirement since "World 
War II helps to explain why so many teaching positions have been 
available for new Ph.D.s in United States history. 

Strong or weak, offering personalized attention or mass educa- 

88 Of all the bachelor's degrees granted in 1957-195 8 in "history" and in 
"social science," 60% were granted in "history." And 60% of the 1,342 institu- 
tions granting either degree granted the degree in "history." Our samples of the 
colleges are heavily weighted (86% "history," 14% "social science") in favor 
of institutions that offer the bachelor's degree with a major in "history." (HEW, 
Earned Degrees . . . 1957-1958, 37, 175-178, 182-187.) 

84 Jennings B. Sanders, "How the College Introductory Course in United States 
History is Organized and Taught," mimeographed Circular No. 288, U.S. Office 
of Education (Washington, Apr. 10, 1951), 14. 



HISTORY IN THE COLLEGES 83 

tion, the history major program attracts a sizable proportion of 
the junior and senior students in most liberal arts colleges. In the 
three-year period 1956-1959 history majors accounted for about 
3.5% of all the bachelor's graduates in the nation, and history's 
share of the total increased slightly each year in that period. The 
bachelor's degree with a major in history was conferred by 790 
institutions in 1957 and by 840 in 1959. The history majors grad- 
uating in 1959 — 13,742 — were 30% more numerous than those 
of 1956. 35 Half the better colleges (52%) report that one- tenth 
or more of their graduates were history majors. In comparison with 
majors in other disciplines, the major in history ranked first in 
number of graduating seniors in one-fourth (26%) of the better 
colleges, and among the top three majors in three-fourths (77%) 
of them. 

SUMMARY 

What emerges from this survey of history in the colleges that is 
most pertinent to graduate education in history? 

It is of first importance for graduate faculties to note that the 
colleges want historians who are capable teachers. Both the colleges 
and the universities need to foster good teaching by young historians 
more than they do. 

The training of college teachers should continue to emphasize 
experience in research scholarship. This training, important for all 
college teachers, is especially needed by those who teach graduate 
as well as undergraduate students — 2 out of every 5 college teach- 
ers of history who hold the Ph.D. 

It is especially important to note that so many of the history 
teachers in the colleges have achieved the Ph.D.: 22% of the junior 
college teachers, 5 8 % of the teachers in "typical" four-year colleges, 
and 71% of the teachers in the better colleges. These statistics have 
a direct bearing upon proposals to create new degrees for college 

The data for all the nation's bachelor's degree graduates were taken from 
HEW, Earned Degrees . . . 1956-1957, 12, 22, 27; 1957-1958, 8, 23, 37; and 
1958-1959, 30-31, 35. 



84 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

teachers. They should also be considered by institutions that are 
thinking of starting Ph.D. programs. 

Both the graduate history faculties and the college administra- 
tions will agree that the development of young Ph.D.s as teachers 
and as scholars is severely handicapped in many colleges by low- 
salaries, inadequate libraries, and heavy teaching loads. And it is 
to be hoped that college history teachers in the future might be 
less often expected to teach primarily in fields other than the one 
in which they have concentrated their doctoral studies. Since it 
will continue to be necessary for instructors to do some teaching 
in more than one field of history in a great many colleges, doctoral 
programs must provide new Ph.D.s with considerable breadth of 
historical training. 

The variety of history courses in the colleges is encouraging. 
It makes teaching in the colleges attractive to trained historians, 
and offers a range of education to undergraduates that is to be 
applauded. But care should be taken to offer history courses to 
nonmajor undergraduates that suit their broad needs and their 
limited time for the study of history. 

An awareness of the discipline as a whole can be conveyed to 
undergraduate history majors by requiring a patterned distribution 
of courses in three or four broad fields of history, by providing a 
comprehensive reading course for senior majors to fill gaps in cov- 
erage, or by the introduction of a comprehensive examination for 
history majors. In addition, majors ought to be acquainted — the 
earlier the better — with historical method, changing philosophies of 
history, and the classics of historical literature. Early competence 
in foreign languages should be strongly encouraged. Neglect of the 
non -Western areas should be ended. In 1961 a distinguished com- 
mittee recommended that: "During their undergraduate years, all 
students should get at least an introductory acquaintance with 
some culture other than their own." 36 

In training Ph.D. candidates as teachers, graduate faculties 

"John B. Howard, Harold Boeschenstein, and others, The University and 
World Affairs (n.p. [New York?], n.d. [1961]), 17, a Ford Foundation report 
of the Committee on the University and World Affairs. 



HISTORY IN THE COLLEGES 8 5 

should take cognizance of the diversity of forms of instruction in 
the colleges. Formal lectures will continue to constitute the basic 
method of history instruction, but Ph.D. candidates should also be 
prepared to lead discussions, direct independent study by students, 
and conduct small-group tutorials and seminars. 

Whatever the form of instruction, college history instructors 
will continue to try to develop in students — majors and non- 
majors alike — the capacity for critical thinking and literate ex- 
pression along with historical understanding. They will find 
time to become more scholarly teachers through research, while 
recognizing that their best chance to make an impact on others is 
offered by the classroom. The history classrooms in American col- 
leges, especially in our nervous era, can be "an abiding influence 
in the life of the great nation to which we belong and ... a 
vital part of life itself." 37 

87 Dexter Perkins, "We Shall Gladly Teach," American Historical Review, LXII 
(January, 19 57), 3 09. 



Chapter 5 
THE MASTER'S DEGREE 



For about 3 out of 10 college-level teachers of history the mas- 
ter's is the highest degree. In the late 1950s, amidst growing 
anxieties about the teacher shortage, several proposals were ad- 
vanced for the creation of special master's degree programs for 
college teachers. These proposals won quick support from critics 
of traditional Ph.D. training. The present and the future of 
master's training in history is thus of great concern to all those 
who appoint college teachers of history, and its future has a direct 
bearing upon the consideration of proposals to reform Ph.D. 
training. 

The prevalence of master's training must be considered in any 
contemplation of the present condition and prospects of the 
degree. Awarded by all the institutions that are engaged in Ph.D. 
training in history, the master's is for most Ph.D.s a part of doc- 
toral training. One-fourth (26%) of the Ph.D. -training history 
departments require students who aspire to the doctorate to take 
the master's degree; only 7% discourage them from taking the 
master's or are indifferent about it. A survey of 143 recent history 
Ph.D.s has shown that 98% earned the master's degree; 86% of 
them earned it in history. 1 In addition to the eighty-odd Ph.D.- 
training history departments, more than 100 others offer the degree 

1 Data supplied by Dr. John K. Folger of the Southern Regional Education 
Board. 

86 



the master's degree 87 

in history. A total of 196 institutions in the nation awarded the 
master's degree in history in 1959, many more than in any of the 
social sciences. (Sociology, with 115 in 1958, was the nearest 
"rival.") In our sample of four-year colleges, one-fifth of the 
"typical" institutions offer the master's degree in history. Half 
the better ones do so. The number of master's programs is likely 
to grow, for 11% of the "typical" colleges and 8% of the better 
ones report that they are considering inaugurating them. 

The number of persons earning the master's in history has in- 
creased each year since 1956; 1,643 master's degrees in history 
were awarded in 1959 (see Table 2-5 in Chapter 2). Production 
has developed in recent years in comparison with the 1956 level 
as follows: 1957, 113%; 1958, 125%; and 1959, 147%. 2 The 
Ph.D. -training universities awarded two-thirds (67%) of all the 
master's degrees in history in the nation in 1958, averaging 12 
master's graduates each. Three institutions awarded more than 40 
and the largest producer — Columbia University — awarded 87 de- 
grees, 1 out of every 16 in the nation. On the other hand, more 
than one-fourth of all institutions awarding master's degrees in 
history in 1958 awarded no more than two degrees each. 3 

How is master's training now conducted? What alternatives to 
it have been proposed? 4 To find out about these matters, question- 
naires on master's training were collected from 164 institutions. 
Together, these institutions awarded four-fifths of all the master's 
degrees in history in the nation in 195 8. They include 77 Ph.D.- 
training departments of history and 87 departments in colleges that 
award the master's degree in history. 

2 HEW, Earned Degrees . . . 1956-1957, 12; 1957-1958, 23, 37; and 1958- 
1959, 30-31, 35. 

3 Production statistics are taken or averaged from HEW, Earned Degrees . . . 
1957-1958, 182-187. 

*Berelson, Graduate Education, 18 5-190, shows that large numbers of acade- 
micians favor "rehabilitation" of the master's degree. 



88 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



ADMISSION, SCREENING, AND BASIC REQUIREMENTS 

"At present, requirements for the A.M. vary sharply over the 
country and as the requirements vary, so does the respect paid the 
degree." 5 These words from the 1957 report of four graduate 
deans succinctly summarize the present training of historians at 
the master's level. 

Variations begin with admission of students. Some institutions 
take almost all applicants who have had undergraduate academic 
records of at least average quality (C or better) . At the same time, 
students in obscure colleges with almost "straight-A" records find 
it difficult to gain admission to major centers of graduate study. 
In a number of the Ph.D. -training history departments visited 
during this study, lower standards are set for master's candidates 
than for post-M.A. students. This happens especially in the state 
universities, which feel obligated to serve secondary education. 
Partly because many of the history Ph.D.s of 1958 assume this 
double standard, a majority of them report that admission of mas- 
ter's candidates was "sufficiently rigorous" in the departments 
where they took Ph.D. training. 

Two-fifths (41%) of the 1958 Ph.D.s (and 57% of the gradu- 
ates of the seven programs highest in prestige) state that "some 
too many" or "far too many" master's candidates were in residence 
at their universities "for adequate faculty attention to them." 
Screening of students generally lacks rigor during the first year 
of graduate study. Even in such a difficult field as Russian studies, 
three-fifths of the entering students in five universities, 1946- 
1956, were awarded master's degrees, and in three of these univer- 
sities four-fifths or more of the entrants were awarded degrees. 6 

If too few students are now sent away during the first year of 

B Report by J. Barzun and others to the 58 th Annual Conference of the 
Association of American Universities and the 9th Annual Conference of the 
Association of Graduate Schools, October 22-23, 1957, published in Journal of 
Proceedings and Addresses — 1957. 

6 Black and Thompson (eds.), American Teaching About Russia, 61. 






THE MASTER S DEGREE 



89 



graduate study, perhaps the fault lies with faculty grading rather 
than with departmental policy. For 88% of the Ph.D. -training 
departments and 85% of the colleges that offer the master's in 
history already require a minimum grade level of B for successful 
completion of the master's degree. Standards seem to be slightly 
less rigorous in the East than elsewhere; only 69% of the Eastern 
colleges granting master's degrees in history report that they re- 
quire a minimum grade level of B. 

Though forms differ, requirements of credit hours are, in sub- 
stance, the most uniform of all stipulations for the master's degree. 
Most departments either require 30 semester hours including 6 
hours credit for thesis or 24 hours plus a thesis for which no hour- 
credit is given. Residence requirements vary but a full academic 
year or its equivalent in summer terms is stipulated by about four- 
fifths of the institutions that offer the master's degree in history. 
There is much more variation in the more significant requirements 
for the master's degree. 

THE MASTER'S THESIS 

About three-fourths of all the colleges and universities in our 
sample still require a thesis for the master's degree in history (see 
Table 5-1). It is optional in many other departments. Some of the 



Table 5-1 

Thesis Requirements in Colleges and Universities 
Offering the Master's Degree in History, 1958-1959 





% of 87 reporting colleges 


% of 77 reporting universities 


Characteristic 


Na- 
tion 


East 


South 


Mid- 
west 


West 


Na- 
tion 


East 


South 


Mid- 
west 


West 


Thesis is required . . . 


77 


62 


77 


94 


76 


75 


83 


88 


50 


80 


Thesis on a foreign 






















area must be based 






















on sources in lan- 






















guage of the area 


72 


90 


59 


62 


75 


69 


73 


65 


57 


82 



90 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

Ph.D. -training faculties that do not require the thesis of all mas- 
ter's candidates nevertheless demand it of those who aspire to the 
Ph.D. They insist that students need the thesis experience and that 
the faculty needs the thesis as proof of ability to do Ph.D. -level 
work. Other departments explicitly discourage the writing of mas- 
ter's theses by would-be Ph.D. candidates. They argue either (1) 
that the prerequisite experience for doctoral work and the demon- 
stration of ability can both be accomplished in a year of seminar 
work by master's candidates, or (2) that they can be accomplished 
during studies at the Ph.D. level. Among the historians interviewed 
in this study, those who either wish or are willing to eliminate the 
master's thesis for Ph.D. candidates are somewhat more numerous 
than the defenders of the thesis requirement. 

How much would be lost if the master's thesis were to be aban- 
doned? How serious a scholarly effort do master's theses represent 
where they are now written? Ideally the thesis should be a "his- 
torical work that is exemplary in style and method, based solidly 
on original sources and interpretatively significant in current schol- 
arship." This is the kind of thesis that Loyola University (Chicago) 
described in 1959 in announcing the inauguration of the William 
P. Lyons Master's Essay Award. The Lyons Award offers tangible 
evidence of the serious belief in some quarters that much would be 
lost if the master's thesis were to be abandoned. 

Both the prestige of the thesis and its training value may be 
approximately gauged by the amount of faculty time and criticism 
that is given to the project. One index of faculty effort is suggested 
by the way in which thesis subjects are chosen. Usually agreement 
between the student and a major professor is sufficient; only 8% 
of the Ph.D. -training departments require the deliberation of a 
faculty committee. The ratio of faculty members to master's grad- 
uates is also suggestive. In 195 8 the Ph.D. -training universities 
awarded an average of 7 master's degrees in history for every 10 
history faculty members. The colleges on an average awarded 
between 4 and 5 master's degrees for every 10 members of the 
history faculty. Thus the college faculties may be able to give more 



THE MASTER'S DEGREE 91 

time to the supervision of master's theses than university facul- 
ties do. 

Still another way to estimate the faculty effort that a master's? 
thesis represents is to ask how many professors must read and pass on 
a thesis. In more than half (54%) of the Ph.D. -training depart- 
ments the answer is three or more faculty members. Two readers- 
suffice in one-third of the departments. In 1 out of 8 (12%) a 
single reader is sufficient. Where a committee is consulted, the 
timing is significant. In at least 36% of the Ph.D. -training de- 
partments the opinions of second, third, or fourth readers are 
solicited before the student completes a full draft of the thesis. 
But in at least 45% of the departments the committee members 
read and pass on the thesis after a complete draft has been written 
by the master's candidate. 

The length of master's theses is not a good test of scholarly qual- 
ity but it is crudely suggestive of the size of the task. Each depart- 
ment that was surveyed was asked to list the length and titles of 
three "typical theses accepted since 1956." The lengths of the 267 
theses reported range from a low of 56 to a high of 3 58 pages; 
23% are shorter than 100 pages and another 23% are longer than 
160 pages. Three-fourths of the theses are less than 160 pages long. 
It is often difficult to imagine why one topic is treated briefly and 
another at length. Why should "Horace Maynard: A Tennessee 
Statesman" get only 56 pages while "Richard Bennett Hubbard, 
'The Demosthenes of Texas' " is worth twice as many? But 
judging by the length of typical theses it seems quite clear that 
they represent a large investment of time, energy, and money. 

Thesis research for would-be Ph.D. candidates in the history of 
foreign areas can have a special value if it accustoms them to using 
foreign language sources. A large majority of the reporting depart- 
ments in the colleges as well as in the universities agree that students 
should be allowed to write theses on foreign areas only when they 
are able (and willing) to use the languages of the subject areas, 
and exceptions are discouraged even in those departments that 
allow them. 



92 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



OTHER VARIATIONS 

The varieties of thesis and other requirements reflect a funda- 
mental and prevalent uncertainty and disagreement about the pur- 
pose of training at the master's level. In twentieth-century America 
the old European concept of the master's degree as evidence of 
broad cultural experience has been challenged and modified — some 
would say corrupted — by attempts to introduce students to the 
more confining rigors of professional research training. Because 
of internal differences of opinion, most graduate faculties build 
both concepts into their rules, often allowing considerable room 
for flexible interpretation of the regulations. On a smaller scale 
this happens within a single department: one faculty member aims 
primarily at the one goal while a colleague seeks the other. 

The position of foreign language examinations among require- 
ments for the master's degree is ambiguous. The requirement is 
sometimes justified on the grounds that it fosters intellectual 
breadth. Other departments require reading knowledge of a for- 
eign language as a research tool though they may not think its 
worth as a cultural attribute justifies the price students pay to 
achieve it. Among both colleges and universities, considered on a 
regional basis, master's candidates are least often required to pass 
a foreign language examination in the Midwest. In the nation as 
a whole almost half the colleges (47%) and universities (48%) 
require master's candidates to pass an examination in one foreign 
language. 

Potentially the requirement that master's candidates in history 
take courses in other disciplines is, like the foreign language re- 
quirement, adaptable to the needs of either research training or 
cultural breadth. In practice, however, cultural breadth is the usual 
justification for this requirement, and it is often linked with the 
pragmatic argument that students as future teachers must be pre- 
pared to give instruction in fields related to history. Yet there is 
little agreement about requiring work in other disciplines or about 






the master's degree 93 

the specific nature or purposes of such work. Compromise is in- 
evitable, and it is most often found in the formula that study in 
other fields shall be "encouraged"; that is, it shall be neither "re- 
quired" nor "discouraged." In our combined sample of colleges 
and universities, minorities of almost equal numbers "require" 
courses in other disciplines (25%) or "discourage" students from 
taking them (21%). Departments in each of these groups have, 
though in different directions, taken large steps toward resolving 
internal differences and defining their purposes; many of the re- 
maining 54% that "encourage" study in other disciplines have not. 
The students in many of these departments are left to make their 
own rule. 

A majority of students at the master's level, left to their own 
devices, seem to choose courses of least resistance rather than avidly 
to seek either of the goals — research prowess or cultural breadth — 
that might logically justify study in another discipline. They tend 
to study neither the strange and often difficult methodology of 
other disciplines that could enrich their research method nor the 
new content courses that could most broaden their conceptualiza- 
tion of history and their capacity for teaching it. Literature, po- 
litical science, and economics (especially economic history), the 
same disciplines most often studied as minors by undergraduate 
history majors, are the ones most often elected as minors at the 
master's level. The very circumstance that should cause master's 
candidates to take work in a relatively neglected discipline such 
as psychology usually causes or rationalizes their failure to do so: 
undergraduate prerequisites for graduate courses have not been 
taken. 

One way out of this dilemma is to permit master's candidates to 
fulfill requirements in another discipline by taking undergraduate 
survey courses for graduate credit. Perhaps even if this is done — 
and almost certainly if it is not done — history students who study 
other disciplines will continue to elect courses most like their own. 
And unless the faculties clarify their thinking on these matters 
history students who take courses in other disciplines will take 
widely varying amounts of work. At present 5 1 % of the university 



94 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

departments that report any requirement of work in other disci- 
plines require only one or two courses; one-fourth require three 
courses and another fourth require four or more courses. 

The variety of practices that has been noted at every stage of 
master's training appears also in the final testing procedure. Some 
departments — apparently as many as 15 to 20% — require neither 
a written nor an oral terminal examination. A few (perhaps 4%) 
require one or the other of each student (presumably letting him 
choose between trial by fire and trial by water). A larger number 
of the departments — almost 20% of those requiring a terminal 
examination — specify that the examination is to be written; some- 
what more (approximately 30%) require both a written and an 
oral examination; and still more — about half — administer an oral 
examination only. 

The oral examination is required (singly or with a written 
examination) in about four-fifths of all departments that ad- 
minister any terminal examination. The oral examination is most 
often required in the Midwest, least often in the East. In almost 
two- thirds of the universities but in only 43% of the colleges 
requiring an oral examination the candidate usually is questioned 
an hour and a half or longer. Commonly a committee of three 
examines the candidate. In 46% of the colleges (but in only 16% 
of the universities) four or more examiners participate, and it is 
in the South that examining committees are most often this large. 
The oral examination in almost half the colleges and universities 
that require it covers course work or fields taken in master's train- 
ing as well as a defense of the thesis. One out of five demands de- 
fense of the thesis and restricts the content examination to the 
field of the thesis. One-third of the institutions cover courses or 
fields but demand no defense of the thesis. (Many — probably most 
— of these institutions do not require students to write theses.) 

When the master's candidate has paid his typist (if there was 
one) and has been congratulated by his oral examination commit- 
tee (when one has functioned) he may count the months he has 
invested in the degree. The sums of time, like the other characteris- 



the master's degree 95 

tics of master's training, differ greatly from institution to institu- 
tion. One thing is certain: the "typical" master's candidate needs 
much more than the advertised period of one academic year to 
complete the degree. Reports were received from our sample of 
colleges on the length of graduate study required for 182 persons 
earning master's degrees in history in 1958. In these cases there 
can be no uncertainty whether the time was spent in master's or 
doctoral training because none of the reporting institutions offered 
the Ph.D. The average (mean) period reported was 18 months — 
two academic years or one and a half calendar years. For one-third 
(34%) of the national sample of 1958 master's degree winners 
the degree was based upon more than 18 months of graduate study; 
only 1 5 % completed the degree in 9 months of study. 7 

This survey of master's training shows that it is futile to talk 
of what the master's degree in history is like. There is no such 
identifiable thing. There are, instead, dozens of different varieties 
of master's degrees in history with varying combinations of some 
or all of the ingredients sketched above. In many institutions the 
master's is a strong degree. In others it is weak. 

One must carefully distinguish between colleges and universi- 
ties in discussing master's training, but on the surface the college 
master's appears to be as strong as the university master's (see 
Table 5-2). The regional strengths and weaknesses of master's 
training in history are also worth noting. It is current fashion in 
discussions of the master's degree to point to some regions as the 
guardians of its purity and to the East as its defiler. Whatever may 
be true of other disciplines, in history it is insufficient to say that 
the master's degree has been weakened only in the East, or "east 
of the Hudson." Among the universities, those in the South give 
on the whole a strong master's degree and those in the Midwest 
give weaker ones. Among the colleges, those in the Midwest give 
a strong degree, closely followed by the West. The institutions 

7 Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, Report for 19 59, 7, shows 
that only 23% of the Fellows of 195 8-1959 had been awarded the master's 
degree at the end of one year of graduate study. 



96 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



Table 5-2 

Relative Strength of Master's Training in 77 Universities 
and 87 Colleges, 1958-1959 



Characteristic 


% of Institutions reporting 


Universities 


Colleges 


B average required 


88 
75 
65 

69 
48 
27 
69 
63 

16 

48 


85 


Thesis required 


77 


Theses more than 100 pp. in length 

Theses on foreign areas required to be based 
on sources in foreign languages 


77 
72 


Foreign language examination required 

Courses in other disciplines required 

Oral examination required 


47 
23 
76 


Oral examination of 1^ hours or more .... 

More than 3 faculty members for final oral 

examination 


43 
46 


Thesis and more than thesis field covered 
on oral examination 


41 







of the East, which on the whole do give a relatively weak master's 
degree, nevertheless maintain notably high standards of foreign- 
language competence. 

It must be emphasized that this account has been concerned with 
the master's degree in history — usually reported by departments 
as a "master of arts" degree, but occasionally reported as a "master 
of science" degree. This account does not cover the master's degree 
in social science, a degree that often allows concentration in history 
and that was awarded by 81 institutions in 1958. 8 It does not 
cover the master's degree in Education, which sometimes involves 
concentration in history (more commonly, in social science) ; nor 
has it covered the "master of arts in teaching" degree (M.A.T.), 
which a few universities have inaugurated for secondary school 
teachers and which allows concentration in history. There has been 

"HEW, Earned Degrees . . . 1957-1958, 23, 37. 



the master's degree 97 

sufficient variety of practice observable in limiting discussion to 
master's training in history. There is variety also in the uses to 
which this training is put. 

THE USES OF THE MASTER'S DEGREE 

Theoretically, standardization of training might be the first 
step toward standardization of use, and most advocates of reform 
approach the problem in this way. But in practice the chances are 
probably even greater that standardization of use will lead to 
greater uniformity of training. Is the master's degree in history 
to be offered primarily for secondary teachers of social studies? 
A clear decision for this alternative would in some institutions 
call for standardization downward. It would necessitate relatively 
lax admission standards, the training of very large numbers of 
students, less rigorous and less individualistic student work, em- 
phasis upon breadth more than upon research training, and in most 
cases the completion of the master's program in one calendar year 
at most. Is the master's degree to be offered not for secondary 
teachers but for college teachers? A clear decision for this alterna- 
tive would quite generally necessitate standardization upward. 
The task in this case would be not so much to "rehabilitate" the 
master's degree as to create a new variety of M.A. 

Since the colleges want their teachers to be broadly educated, 
trained as research scholars, and acquainted with the problems of 
teaching, it will not do to offer them the master's degree of forty 
or sixty years ago. A master's degree deliberately designed to meet 
the needs of college teachers must be a junior Ph.D. if it is to be 
attempted at all. Since fewer candidates would want it than would 
want a master's for secondary teachers, fairly high admission 
standards for such a degree could be established, training could be 
reasonably individualistic and rigorous, and considerable emphasis 
could be placed on research training if not on creative scholarship. 
All this plus the achievement of breadth and possibly some super- 
vised introduction to college teaching would make it difficult to 



98 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

compress the training period into less than two academic years, 
and part-time students might require three academic years. 

Faculties will be more inclined to build programs for a super- 
master's if they are reasonably certain that the colleges will appoint 
and promote persons who might earn it. Can they be "reason- 
ably certain" now? Chapter 4 of this study has shown that a good 
many teachers of history in colleges and very many in junior col- 
leges lack the Ph.D. degree; but this does not mean that they have 
only the master's degree. Most of them have engaged in post- 
master's study and many have completed all requirements for the 
doctorate except the dissertation. Their presence on college facul- 
ties cannot be accepted as evidence of general demand in the 
colleges for persons with only a master's degree. 

In an attempt to determine the present uses of the master's 
degree, departments of history in the fall of 1958 were asked to 
report on the professional activities of persons to whom they had 
awarded the master's degree in history that year. This yielded re- 
ports on 544 persons, 39% of all 1,397 master's degrees in history 
awarded in the nation in 1958. Almost two-thirds of the new 
master's graduates were pursuing doctoral studies. Those who 
earned university master's degrees much more frequently pursued 
doctoral studies than did those who earned college master's degrees 
(74% and 43%). The next most common professional function 
of master's training in history is to further the qualifications of 
secondary school teachers: 12% of the university master's gradu- 
ates and 25% of the college master's graduates found positions in 
secondary education. Almost half (45%) of those in the total 
sample who did not undertake doctoral studies found teaching 
positions in secondary education and about 3% more entered 
elementary education. Only 2% of the history master's graduates 
of 1958 are reported to have found college teaching positions, and 
only 4% more were appointed to junior college faculties. What- 
ever the future may hold, few persons with only the master's de- 
gree in history are now appointed to college teaching positions. 



the master's degree 99 



PROPOSED REFORMS: FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 

History departments have an obligation to the schools that they 
cannot ignore, especially since Soviet as well as American educators 
are working toward a fifth year of study for secondary school 
teachers and calling for more emphasis on "solid subject matter 
content." 9 If the traditional master's degree is to be refurbished 
for college teachers something must be put in its place for second- 
ary teachers. The substitute must be acceptable to both the second- 
ary schools and the history faculties in colleges and universities. 
In devising the substitute it will be both pedagogically and strate- 
gically wise to recognize the good sense in admonitions by W. H. 
Cartwright and R. M. Lumiansky that "the whole university 
rather than any special department or division" — the administra- 
tion and the academic departments as well as the professors of 
Education — "must enter actively and cooperatively into the pro- 
gram." 10 

Several colleges and universities — among them Harvard, Yale, 
Wesleyan University, Brown, Colgate, Mount Holyoke, the Uni- 
versity of Massachusetts, Johns Hopkins, Duke, Vanderbilt, and 
Tulane — have inaugurated the Master of Arts in Teaching 
(M.A.T.) for secondary teachers. This degree has at least the 
advantage of clearly defined function. One institution that awards 
only the M.A.T. as a graduate degree speaks for others in reporting 
that graduates are placed in "all types of secondary and elementary 

9 On American approaches see, e.g., the following thoughtful articles in the 
April, 1959, number of Educational Record (XL): William H. Cartwright, 
"The Graduate Education of Teachers — Proposals for the Future," 149, 150; 
Calvin E. Gross, "A Rationale for Teacher Education," 137, 141; R. M. Lumian- 
sky, "Concerning Graduate Education for Teachers," 145. On Soviet trends see 
U.S. Office of Education, Soviet Commitment to Education: Report of the First 
Official U.S. Education Mission to the U.S.S.R., with an Analysis of Recent Edu- 
cational Reforms (Washington, 1959), 8 5. 

10 Cartwright, "The Graduate Education of Teachers," 154; Lumiansky, "Con- 
cerning Graduate Education for Teachers," 145. 



100 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

teaching positions or administrative posts in these levels." Few, if 
any, M.A.T.s go on to doctoral studies. Graduates are not ap- 
pointed to college or junior college positions. But if the professional 
use of the M.A.T. is clearly defined, its requirements already vary 
somewhat from institution to institution. The M.A.T. commonly 
requires more hours of course work than the older master's degree, 
divides them between the subject-matter field and Education, 
requires no foreign language examination, and sometimes requires 
no terminal examination. It can be completed in nine to twelve 
months. 

With the M.A.T. available, is there any compelling reason why 
Ph.D. -training departments should continue to offer the tradi- 
tional master's degree in history for secondary teachers? How seri- 
ous a loss would the secondary schools suffer if the master's degree 
in history were no longer offered for their teachers? There is no 
way to know exactly the number or percentage of the new mas- 
ter's-level secondary school teachers of a given year that earn the 
master's degree in history. We can estimate that at most about 1 
out of 6 new master's-level teachers of history in the secondary 
schools in 1958 could have earned the master's degree in history. 11 
Since only about half of these earned their degrees in universities, 
the universities could have provided no more — at the very most — 
than 1 out of 12 persons who make up the pool of new, master's- 
level history teachers in secondary schools in a given year. It seems 
probable that secondary education would suffer no irreparable 
quantitative damage if the Ph.D. -training history departments 
should cease offering the master's in history for secondary teachers. 

How much of a loss would Ph.D. -training departments suffer 
if they were no longer to offer the master's degree in history for 
secondary school teachers? For some institutions the loss would 
be a very considerable one, especially in summer school enrollments; 
but already two-thirds of the Ph.D. -training and college history 

u This assumes that the number of would-be secondary school teachers of his- 
tory earning master's degrees in 195 8 was at least 1,480. Probably about 237 
persons who were awarded the master's degree in history in 1958 went into 
secondary teaching. 



THE MASTER'S DEGREE 101 

departments (65% in the former and 69% in the latter) report 
that secondary teachers in their institutions tend to seek the 
master's degree in Education or the M.A.T. rather than the mas- 
ter's degree in history. The colleges and the universities agree that 
they make their choice chiefly because Education offers a quicker 
or easier degree, though in some institutions students also choose 
Education to meet state certification requirements for teachers. 
This tendency of secondary teachers to shy away from the master's 
in history enables many of the history departments to maintain 
higher standards for the master's degree in history than would 
be possible if they tried to educate large numbers of prospective 
secondary school teachers. 

Some history departments strongly oppose abandoning the 
master's degree in history for secondary teachers on the grounds 
that secondary teachers need to gain research training by writing 
theses. But very many secondary teachers who earn the master's 
degree manage to do so without writing theses. (Many of the 
larger history departments offer a choice of degree programs; 
master's candidates may choose one with or one without the thesis 
requirement.) The strongest argument against the M.A.T. for 
history teachers is that it would provide them with fewer content 
courses than the present master's degree in history. To this com- 
plaint advocates of the M.A.T. reply that the new degree offers 
a way through which some secondary teachers now taking the 
M.Ed. — and completely lost to historians — might be at least half- 
saved by the graduate history faculties. 

Would students be attracted in large numbers to M.A.T. pro- 
grams for secondary school teachers? Factors that lie outside the 
program would determine this, and the basic factor would proba- 
bly be the prevailing salaries for secondary school teachers. 12 

13 See Ernest Stabler, "The Master of Arts in Teaching Idea," The Educational 
Record, XLI (July, 1960), 224-229. It may be noted in passing that in the 
U.S.S.R., where salaries for secondary teachers compare favorably with those for 
medical doctors, there is no shortage of candidates. On the contrary, only about 
1 out of 5 applicants are admitted to teacher-training institutions, according to 
the U.S. Office of Education, Soviet Commitment to Education, 85. 



102 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

Money can do more than experimentation with master's curricula 
to staff the secondary school history courses with competent teach- 
ers during the 1960s. 



PROPOSED REFORMS: FOR COLLEGE TEACHERS 

Perhaps a few Ph.D. -training history departments will wish to 
reform master's training by incidentally awarding the M.A. degree 
to Ph.D. candidates upon the completion of all requirements for 
the Ph.D. except the dissertation. This is already being done by 
Princeton University. No candidate who wants only the master's 
degree is admitted to graduate study in history at Princeton. Yet 
by conferring the master's degree only upon students who have 
completed two to three years of graduate study and who are ex- 
pected to be able to complete the Ph.D., Princeton has in actuality 
created a super-master's degree of the kind that has figured in a 
good many theoretical statements in recent years. 

Widespread adoption of the Princeton plan would provide quali- 
fied college teachers of history, but if Princeton standards were 
maintained it would not provide college teachers in greatly larger 
numbers than can be awarded Ph.D.s. Various plans have been 
suggested for a master's degree that would prepare larger numbers 
of college teachers. The Committee on Policies in Graduate Educa- 
tion of the Association of Graduate Schools (AGS) in 1957 pro- 
posed a "rehabilitated" year-and-a-half master's program for college 
teachers that would not necessarily be terminal. "The first year 
should be exactly like that of the candidate for the Ph.D., since the 
difference between the degrees should pivot on amount and not 
on quality. In the third term (the first of the second year), each 
candidate should take a course directly concerned with the teach- 
ing of this subject. This course should be taught only by members 
of the student's department. ... In this same term the student 
would write an essay of 75 to 125 pages, preferably stemming 
from his seminar of the second term, which need not be the 



the master's degree 103 

original contribution demanded of the Ph.D. Finally, the student's 
subject should be named on the Master's diploma." 13 

Similar proposals quickly followed. On November 20, 1957, 
the Trustees of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of 
Teaching cited the AGS report of the four graduate deans and, 
without providing details, called for "a rigorous effort ... to 
revitalize the Master of Arts degree and make it a terminal degree 
for teaching." 14 A. P. Brogan, dean emeritus of the University of 
Texas graduate school, in the spring of 1958 proposed a master's 
degree for college teachers that would be completed in twelve 
months of study in "strictly graduate courses" with emphasis on 
"seminars and conference work." The Brogan master's would in- 
clude some introduction to "the methods and the problems of 
teaching" and a thesis usually less than 100 pages in length, 
viewed as a training experience but "suitable for publication at 
least in form." 15 

The year 1959 brought other proposals. In February the dean 
of a West Coast graduate school, supported by the historian then 
president of the university, suggested the creation of a new degree, 
the "diplomate in college teaching." This proposed program would 
identify potential college teachers and begin their preparation in 
the junior year of undergraduate study. It would continue for 
three full academic years and two or three summers. Taking re- 
quired courses would be minimized and the program would 
"maximize reliance on self-study, research, conferences, discussions, 
and creative scholarly achievements." 16 Later in 1959 the principle 
of beginning the training of college teachers in the junior year of 
undergraduate study was incorporated in a new proposal by Oliver 
C. Carmichael, consultant to the Fund for the Advancement of 

13 See footnote 5, above. 

"Grayson L. Kirk and others, "The Education of College Teachers," 13, 18. 

15 A. P. Brogan, "Tarnishing is an Autocatalytic Reaction: Restoring the 
Master's Degree," The Graduate Journal, I (Spring, 1958), 34-40. 

16 Harry Alpert, "The Diplomate in College Teaching," mimeographed proposal 
"for discussion purposes only," University of Oregon, Feb. 13, 1959. 



104 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

Education and former president of the University of Alabama. 
The program would involve: (1) selection and advice of students 
during the first two undergraduate years; (2) teaching of one 
course (one term) by undergraduates; (3) much more reading 
and writing of research papers during the junior and senior years 
than is now common; and (4) a master's thesis. The master's thus 
earned would not necessarily be a terminal degree; on the contrary, 
the author of this plan suggests that one of its advantages would 
be "in recruiting Ph.D. candidates," and another would be its ac- 
celeration of doctoral training. 17 

Unless the policies of both the colleges and the accrediting asso- 
ciations are changed there will be few jobs for college history 
teachers with master's degrees representing twelve to eighteen 
months of graduate study. Officials of all six regional accrediting 
associations, responding to specific questions, show no sympathy 
for a one-year master's degree. A two- or three-year master's degree 
such as that awarded at Princeton will be honored much more 
readily. 18 But the accrediting officials make it clear that the Ph.D. 
is the preferred degree for college teachers. One states that "in 
general staff members who have two years of graduate study are 
regarded as better qualified than those who hold only the master's 
degree," but adds that "a two-years' master's degree for college 
teachers is not to be weighted as satisfactory for a large number of 
college teachers." One accrediting agency official even wrote that: 
"A Doctor's degree is accepted as such whether it be a Ph.D. or an 
Ed.D., a research or a teaching doctorate." While this may be an 
extreme view, it is clear that it is the doctorate that counts most 
when a faculty is evaluated by the regional accrediting agency; 
and there is some reason to believe that the college executives are 

"Oliver C. Carmichael, "A Three-Year Master's Degree Beginning with the 
Junior Year in College," Journal of Higher Education, XXXI (March, 1960), 
127-132. 

"In substance this is the two-year master's recently proposed by Everett 
Walters, "A New Degree for College Teachers," Journal of Higher Education, 
XXXI (May, 1960), 282-284. 



the master's degree 105 

as prone to demand the doctorate of their faculty members as are 
the officials of the accrediting agencies. 19 

These circumstances suggest that reservations about any imme- 
diate attempt to "rehabilitate" the master's degree in history are 
in order. Other, graver, questions will occur to many history 
faculties. It is difficult to see how the kind of historians the colleges 
want as instructors can be trained in twelve to eighteen months of 
graduate study. Even allowing for greater articulation of under- 
graduate and graduate study, a one-year master's degree in history 
would represent a less demanding program than present master's 
training affords in many universities and colleges. 

SUMMARY 

The master's in history in a majority of institutions involves: 
(1) relatively undiscriminating admission of candidates; (2) a 
very low casualty rate during the first year of graduate study; 
(3) requirement of B-average grades; (4) 30 semester hours of 
study; (5) an academic year or its equivalent in formal residence 
requirement, but eighteen months in actual practice; (6) a thesis 
of 100 to 160 pages in length; (7) use of foreign languages in 
master's theses that treat foreign areas; (8) some study in disci- 
plines closely related to history; and (9) a one-and-a-half- to two- 
hour oral examination by a committee of three faculty members 
covering fields and courses plus the thesis (if a thesis is required). 
Three percentage points make it impossible to say that this model 
of master's training in history involves an examination in a foreign 
language, for only about 47.5% of the respondents report this as 
a requirement. 

Disagreement about the character and professional function of 

19 Our inquiries brought helpful responses from officials of the New England 
Association, the Middle States Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, the 
Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, the North Central 
Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, the Western College Association, 
and the Northwest Association of Secondary and Higher Schools. 



106 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

master's training is deeply rooted in the development of education 
in America. Only the metaphor was new when a graduate dean 
recently described the master's degree as "a bit like a streetwalker 
— all things to all men (and at different prices)." 20 Berelson has 
shown that as early as 1902 the Association of American Universi- 
ties debated whether the master's was a terminal degree or a sign- 
post en route to the Ph.D. In 1910 the AAU heard a report that 
the thesis requirement was far from universal; that the degree was 
partly cultural, partly research-oriented, and mainly of professional 
use to secondary teachers. Dissatisfaction through the years has 
produced several proposals that the degree be strengthened. But 
Berelson is probably right in his conclusion: the master's "carries 
its weight in the academic procession, but it cannot carry a great 
deal more." 21 

Whatever it has been in the past or may be in the future, the 
master's degree in history is now primarily a signpost en route to 
the doctorate. Whether viewed in this light or as a degree for 
secondary teachers, it appears that the period of study it requires 
in most institutions — the average period is eighteen months — is 
too long. If it is not to be used as a degree for college teachers, a 
way should be found to make it possible to complete the degree in 
twelve months without seriously lowering standards. This can be 
done if quality rather than quantity of work is the test of student 
excellence. Much more rigorous selection of students, careful and 
early screening of those who are admitted, and financial support 
for full-time study offer hopes for success. 

Among the requirements for the degree the thesis is most often 
the cause of delayed progress. Two terms of seminar work should 
certainly be required of first-year graduate students, and many 
history departments accept satisfactory work in seminars in lieu 
of the thesis. Departments that continue to require it can restrict 
the scope and length of theses. More adequate faculty guidance at 
the beginning of graduate study can also help avoid unduly long 
master's programs. 

J. P. Elder as quoted by Berelson, Graduate Education, 18 5. 
21 Ibid., 18, 30, 185-186, 190. 



the master's degree 107 

It is impossible to imagine the general adoption of a uniform 
program for the master's degree in history that would adequately 
prepare college teachers, though some departments might wish to 
award the master's to Ph.D. candidates when they pass the general 
examination for the doctorate. 

In any case it is to be hoped that revised master's programs will 
not prolong doctoral studies. For the education of Ph.D.s is the most 
challenging task in graduate education and the one most in the 
interest of history instruction in the colleges during the 1960s. 



Chapter 6 
PH.D.-TRAINING INSTITUTIONS 



The availability of fellowships will do much to determine the 
number of doctoral candidates in history and their choice of 
graduate schools. 1 But few doctoral candidates of real promise are 
drawn to a university that has only money to offer. 2 The reputa- 
tion of the department (especially in the field of history in which 
the student wishes to specialize), library resources, the fame of a 
single professor, and the general prestige of the institution — all 
these are considered along with the lure of financial aid in deter- 
mining the choice of a graduate school. 3 

How strong are the existing Ph.D. programs in history? Do they 
have sufficient capacity to expand to meet the increased needs of 
the 1960s for history Ph.D.s? Are new Ph.D. programs in history 
needed? What standards should new programs expect to meet? 
Directly or indirectly this chapter answers these questions. 

1 Sibley, The Recruitment, Selection, and Training of Social Scientists, 56 
(table 15); the NORC study of 1959. 

2 See NORC study of 1959; Robert M. Lester, A Review of Faculty Fellow- 
ships Granted by the Southern Fellowships Fund, 1955-1958 (Chapel Hill, 1958), 
especially table D; Gropper and Fitzpatrick, Who Goes to Graduate School?, 
23; our own survey of the Ph.D.s of 1958. 

*See also the conclusions reached by: Wilson, The Academic Man, 50; Berel- 
son, Graduate Education, 143; Charles M. Grigg, "Who Wants to Go to Graduate 
School, and Why?" Research Reports in Social Science of Florida State University, 
II (February, 1959), 11. 

108 



PH.D. -TRAINING INSTITUTIONS 



109 



WHICH INSTITUTIONS OFFER THE PH.D. IN HISTORY? 



The 5 most productive universities in the nation awarded half 
the nation's annual supply of Ph.D.s (all fields) until the mid- 
192 0s, but by the 1950s the top 5 awarded less than one-fourth. 
That is because new doctoral programs have sprung up, have strug- 
gled up, or have been stillborn in every decade since 1900. 4 History 
has followed the general trend. In the period 1893-193 5, 6 univer- 
sities awarded 54% of all the Ph.D.s in history in the nation. In 
the period 1948-1958 the output of the 11 most productive insti- 
tutions had to be added up to account for 54% of national pro- 
duction. The increase in number of Ph.D. programs through World 
War II can be followed in Table 6-1, which also shows the size of 
the programs in terms of the average annual output of Ph.D.s in 
history. The number of institutions with relatively large history 

Table 6-1 

Growth of Doctoral Programs in History by Selected 
Five-year Periods, 1881-1945 



Period 


Approximate number 

of institutions 

awarding Ph.D. 

degrees in history 


Approximate annual 
average Ph.D.s 
per institution 


1881-1885 
1891-1895 
1901-1905 
1911-1915 
1921-1925 
1931-1935 
1941-1945 
1955-1959 


5 

13 
18 
22 
30 
46 
58 
73 


0.4 
0.7 
1.1 
1.2 
1.6 
2.9 
2.0 
4.1 



source: Data from William B. Hesseltine and Louis Kaplan, "Doctors of 
Philosophy in History: a Statistical Study," American Historical Review, XLVII 
(July, 1942), 772-773; Clarence S. Marsh (ed.), American Universities and Colleges, 
4th ed. (Washington, 1940), 72-81, 90; and A. J. Bruembaugh (ed.), American 
Universities and Colleges, 5th ed. (Washington, 1948), tables 1-3. 

* Berelson, Graduate Education , 93-94. 



110 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

programs (at least 30 Ph.D.s in five years) rose from 1 in the 
period 1916-1920 to 7 in the years 1926-1930, and to 18 in the 
period 195 5-1959. 

At the outbreak of World War II, 60 institutions were awarding 
the Ph.D. in history; almost 80 were doing so by the late 1950s, 
and well over 80 were offering doctoral training. A little more 
than one-fourth of them first awarded Ph.D.s in the period 1876- 
1914. An equal proportion began awarding the Ph.D. only after 
1945. Since World War II the South and West have added Ph.D. 
programs in history more rapidly than other regions; 43% of the 
programs in the South and 40% of those in the West have been 
inaugurated since 1945. By early 1960, 88 institutions were re- 
ported to be offering Ph.D. training in history — between 4 and 
5% of all the institutions of higher learning in America. 5 

Why does the number of programs increase through the years? 
Explanations are to be found in the prospectus with which one 
history department inaugurated Ph.D. training in 1959-1960: 
"Even before the Department began to plan it, applications and 
inquiries came to it from masters of arts and other graduates. 
. . . Beyond the immediate need, however, there exists an urgent, 
nation-wide demand for doctors of philosophy in history. . . . 
Moreover, in order to teach the rapidly growing undergraduate 
classes efficiently and economically, the Department here must 
have graduate assistants and readers and must provide scholarly 
reasons to attract them." Letters of endorsement of the proposed 
Ph.D. program from distinguished historians were mimeographed 
and circulated to the graduate faculty in support of the program. 
One of these letters added yet another justification: "You will 

have great difficulty in keeping good men at if you do not 

offer them the opportunity of giving graduate work." 

These quotations will seem familiar to any member of a gradu- 

5 This survey of development is based on Hesseltine and Kaplan, "Doctors of 
Philosophy in History," 772-773 (for 1881-1935); Marsh (ed.), American 
Universities and Colleges, 4th ed., 72-81, 90; Brumbaugh (ed.), American Uni- 
versities and Colleges, 5th ed., tables 1-3; Sibley, Recruitment, Selection, and 
Training of Social Scientists, 105-106. 



PH.D. -TRAINING INSTITUTIONS 111 

ate faculty who has sat through discussions of new doctoral pro- 
grams in recent years. To them might be added two other factors 
that are seldom put in the form of written arguments: the pressure 
of a university administration for initiating a Ph.D. program, and 
the fear that the School of Education may soon supply colleges 
with pseudo historians unless the Ph.D. in history is offered locally. 
The arguments in all their variety usually prove to be locally con- 
vincing and, in recent years, convincing off campus as well; the 
specific proposal noted above earned its institution a number of 
National Defense Fellowships for its first Ph.D. candidates in 
history. 

There is no way for us to be certain that University 

should not have inaugurated a Ph.D. program. The company it 
joins is already large and heterogeneous. Table 6-2 shows the 79 
institutions that actually awarded Ph.D.s in the eleven-year period 
1948-1958. To these should be added the following 9 institutions, 
7 of which have inaugurated Ph.D. programs since 195 8: Arizona, 
Delaware, Florida State, Idaho, Mississippi State, Mississippi, Occi- 
dental, Tennessee, and Wayne State. 

The institutions involved vary tremendously in output of his- 
tory Ph.D.s. One-third averaged fewer than one Ph.D. per year 
in the period 1948-195 8. The 38 smallest producers altogether 
awarded fewer Ph.D.s than did Columbia (which awarded 9% 
of the national total). Harvard's production (with Radcliffe's, 
12% of the national total) was greater than the combined produc- 
tion of the 42 smallest producers. Harvard (with Radcliffe) 
awarded 1 out of 8 of the history Ph.D.s in the nation; Columbia, 
which gave first place to Harvard in the period 1931-193 5, 
awarded 1 out of 11. Together they awarded more Ph.D.s in his- 
tory than all the institutions of the South; together they awarded 
more than all the universities of the West. But they are by no 
means the only very large programs. The 18 largest producers 
awarded two-thirds (67%) of all the Ph.D.s in the nation, 1948- 
195 8; the 28 largest awarded four-fifths (81%) of the total. 
The paradox is apparent: while most of the Ph.D. programs in 
history are small, most history Ph.D.s are trained in very large ones. 



112 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



Table 6-2 

Production of 3,133 Ph.D.s by 79 Universities* Awarding 
the Doctorate in History, 1948-1958 (11 Years) 



377 


Harvard and 


34 


Colorado 


9 


Alabama 




Radcliffe 


34 


Pittsburgh 


9 


Maryland 


288 


Columbia 


33 


Fordham 


9 


West Virginia 


212 


California (Berkeley 


32 


St. Louis 


8 


Dropsie 




and UCLA) 


31 


Nebraska 


8 


South Carolina 


161 


Wisconsin 


29 


Missouri 


7 


Bryn Mawr 


155 


Chicago 


29 


Vanderbilt 


7 


Washington U. (Mo.) 


100 


Yale 


26 


Northwestern 


6 


Claremont 


99 


Pennsylvania 


24 


Boston U. 


6 


Kansas 


91 


Stanford 


22 


U. of Washington 


5 


George Washington 


90 


Texas 


21 


Kentucky 


5 


Michigan State 


86 


North Carolina 


21 


Oklahoma 


5 


Pennsylvania State 


80 


Michigan 


21 


Western Reserve 


5 


Rutgers 


70 


Minnesota 


19 


American 


5 


Utah 


67 


Illinois 


18 


Brown 


4 


Rice 


61 


Georgetown 


18 


Clark 


4 


Syracuse 


58 


Cornell 


18 


George Peabody 


4 


Washington State 


57 


Indiana 


18 


New Mexico 


3 


Lehigh 


54 


State U. of Iowa 


16 


Rochester 


3 


North Dakota 


53 


NYU 


14 


St. John's 


3 


Texas 


48 


Catholic 


13 


Florida 




Technological 


44 


Duke 


12 


Louisiana State 


2 


Boston College 


44 


Southern California 


12 


U. of Notre Dame 


2 


Tufts 


42 


Ohio State 


11 


Emory 


1 


Arkansas 


39 


Johns Hopkins 


11 


Loyola (111.) 


1 


Buffalo 


39 


Princeton 


11 


Tulane 


1 


Cincinnati 


37 


Virginia 


10 


Oregon 


1 


Georgia 



* The total is 78 if UCLA and Berkeley are counted as one institution, as they are in the 
source from which these statistics were taken. From reports to this Committee it appears 
that Berkeley accounted for 69% of the Ph.D.s in history offered by both institutions in 
the period 1955-1959. The 1948-1958 total can be divided, therefore, to show approx- 
imately 147 for Berkeley and 65 for UCLA. 

source: The basic source for table 6-2 is Mary Irwin (ed.), American Universities and 
Colleges, 8th ed. (Washington, I960), 1157-1159. Rutgers is credited in our table with 
5 Ph.D.s (the number reported in our survey for the years 1955-1958), though Irwin reports 
only 1 Ph.D. for Rutgers. Irwin does not include Tufts, which awarded at least 2 Ph.D.s 
in history in the period 1955-1960 according to reports received by this committee. Cf. 
table 6-2, above, with table IV in Wellemeyer, "Survey of United States Historians, 
1952," 346. 



PH.D. -TRAINING INSTITUTIONS 



113 



Table 6-3 

41 Universities that Were First Choices for Graduate Study 

by 1 or More of 202 Woodrow Wilson Fellows in History, I960, 

plus 15 Other Universities Chosen by Fellows in 1958 or 1959* 



University 



Fellows 



American 1 

Boston U 1 

Brandcis 1 

Brown 3 

(Bryn Mawr) 

(Buffalo) 

California (Berkeley) 17 

UCLA 2 

Catholic U 1 

Chicago 3 

Cincinnati 1 

Claremont 1 

Colorado 1 

Columbia 19 

Cornell 2 

Duke 2 

(Emory) 

Fordham 1 

Georgetown 1 

George Washington 1 

Harvard and Radcliffe 55 

Illinois 1 

Indiana 2 

Iowa 1 

Johns Hopkins 8 

(Kansas) 

McGill 1 

Michigan 1 

* Institutions chosen in 1958 and 1959 

source : Data compiled from Woodrow 

tion, Report for 1959 (n. p. [Princeton], n. 



University 

(Minnesota). 

Missouri 

New Mexico 

North Carolina .... 

Northwestern 

Notre Dame 

Ohio State 

(Oklahoma) 

Pennsylvania 

(Pittsburgh) 

Princeton 

Rochester 

(Rutgers) 

St. Louis 

(South Carolina). . . 

Stanford 

(Syracuse) 

Texas 

Toronto 

Tufts 

Tulane 

(Vanderbilt) 

(Virginia) 

(U. of Washington) , 
(Western Reserve). . 

Wisconsin 

(Xavier) 

Yale 



Fellows 

1 
1 
3 
2 
1 
1 



14 
2 



21 



are shown in parentheses. 

Wilson National Fellowship Founda- 

d. [I960]) 32-35, 58. 



As Table 6-3 shows, the most promising students have tended 
to enroll in centers that are already large, or that have much 
prestige. Table 6-3 shows the 56 universities named as first choices 



114 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

for graduate study by Woodrow Wilson Fellows in history, 1958- 
1960. It might be compared with Table 6-2. An indication of the 
tendency of large programs to become larger may be seen in the 
fact that more than one-fourth of the 202 Woodrow Wilson Fel- 
lows in history in 1960 named Harvard (including Radcliffe) as 
first choice. Next most popular as first choices were Yale, Columbia, 
California, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, and Wisconsin. Six of these 
institutions appear among the top seven in the nation in prestige 
in a survey of opinion of Ph.D. -training history faculties, under- 
taken as part of this study in 1959. (Chicago was ranked among 
the top seven in that survey. Johns Hopkins was rated high, but 
not among the top seven.) 

FACULTIES AND FIELDS 

The institutions offering the Ph.D. in history vary greatly in 
faculty strength. The seven that are ranked highest in prestige 
by their peers report (1958—1959) an average (mean) history 
faculty of 39 persons, of whom 3 5 have the Ph.D., 31 have three 
or more years of teaching experience, and 29 actually teach gradu- 
ate students. On the other hand, almost one-fourth (22%) of all 
the Ph.D. -training departments in the nation report fewer than 
10 historians on their faculties; 5% only 4 to 5. Small departments 
are more common in the West and are next most common in the 
East: 42% in the West, 28% in the East, 15% in the South, and 
11% in the Midwest in 1958-1959 had fewer than 10 history fac- 
ulty members. The average number of faculty members per depart- 
ment in the East and Midwest is slightly larger than the national 
average, while the average in the South and West is slightly smaller 
(see Table 6-4). The average (mean) Ph.D. -training history fac- 
ulty in the nation included 17 persons in 1958-1959, 15 with the 
Ph.D. and 13 with three or more years of teaching experience; 13 of 
the 17 were actually engaged in teaching graduate students. 

The hypothetical average (mean) program in the nation in the 
period 195 5-1959 awarded 4 history Ph.D.s per year. In the year 
1958-1959 it had 24 Ph.D. (post-master's) candidates in residence 



PH.D.-TRAINING INSTITUTIONS 



115 



Table 6-4 

Size of History Faculties in 80 Institutions Offering 
the Ph.D. in History, 1958-1959 





%of 


%of 


%of 




fac- 


fac- 


fac- 


Group 


ulty 


ulty 


ulty 




with 


with 


with 




B.A. 


M.A. 


Ph.D. 


Top 7 institutions 








in prestige 


1 


9 


90 


29 Eastern insti- 








tutions 


3 


15 


82 


20 Southern insti- 








tutions 


5 


13 


82 


19 Midwestern 








institutions .... 


0.3 


6 


91 


12 Western insti- 








tutions 


0.0 


7 


92 


80 U.S. 








institutions .... 


2 


11 


86 



Average No. 
of history 
instructors 





With- 


Total 


out 




Ph.D. 


39 


4 


19 


4 


15 


3 


18 


2 


16 


1 


17 


2 



With 
Ph.D. 



Average 

No. of 

history 

instructors 

with 

3 years 

or more of 

experience 



Average 
No. of 
history 
instructors 
teaching 
graduate 
students 



29 
14 
11 
15 
13 
13 



and another 15 not on campus but working toward completion 
of the Ph.D. The "average" program also awarded 11 master's 
degrees (9.4 in 1956; 11.2 in 1958) per year and in 1958-1959 
enrolled 41 master's candidates. The average program thus awarded 
a total of 14 graduate degrees per year per 65 students in residence, 
or 1 graduate degree for every 4.6 graduate students. 

How large should a Ph.D. program be? It is almost impossible 
to speak in detail with any authority on this subject. Enough 
graduate students are needed to provide mutual stimulation and 
criticism and to challenge the best efforts of the faculty. But a 
small group of able students is better than a large group of medi- 
ocre ones. A program — small or large — is too large whenever a 
sizable proportion of its students is not capable of development 
into able Ph.D.s. A program is also too large when its faculty can- 
not provide graduate students with individual help and criticism 



116 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

in planning their programs, in their research, and in their writing. 
A survey of Woodrow Wilson Fellows has discovered that those 
in small departments report satisfaction with graduate training 
somewhat more often than those in the largest and middle-sized 
centers. 6 This may mean that instruction is better in the smaller 
places or — at least as likely — that competition is not as keen. 

Should there be any minimum size for Ph.D. -training history 
faculties? The Ph.D.s of 195 8 were asked this question. The varia- 
tions in their answers were almost as numerous as the variations in 
size of the training faculties. Thus 38% reported that 9 to 12 his- 
torians were needed before a history faculty offered Ph.D. training; 
34% thought no minimum number was necessary or named a 
number smaller than 9, and 28% said 13 or more historians were 
needed. Two-thirds or more of these Ph.D.s were products of large 
programs, yet 72% of them would be satisfied to see doctoral 
training offered by a history faculty no larger than 12 professors. 
Most historians with experience on graduate faculties probably 
would not wish to be involved in the education of history Ph.D.s 
in a department that included fewer than 8 well-trained historians, 
most of them experienced teachers and active scholars. (As was 
noted in Chapter 4, the average size of the history faculty in 126 
better colleges in 1958-1959 was 8.8 instructors.) 

Other characteristics of a faculty are more revealing of its ca- 
pacity for doctoral training than size alone. Do faculty members 
hold the doctorate? Are their services best utilized by allowing 
them to teach in their specialized fields? Are they active contribu- 
tors to research scholarship? Do those who teach the history of 
foreign areas obtain firsthand knowledge of these areas through 
travel and study? 

The Ph.D. is almost a mandatory qualification for teaching in 
history departments that offer doctoral training; in 1958-1959, 
6 out of 7 members of these departments held the Ph.D. (82% 
in the East and South, 91 to 92% in the Midwest and West) . Only 
4% of these departments anticipate a need in the future to appoint 
persons who lack the doctor's degree, notwithstanding expected 

6 Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, Report for 1959, 9. 



PH.D. -TRAINING INSTITUTIONS 



117 



enrollment increases. Two-thirds say flatly that they do not. The 
remaining 29% expect to appoint persons who lack the Ph.D. or 
its equivalent "only as a temporary measure." Most departments 
will allow the new faculty members to teach in their fields of 
specialization: 53% report that "new" faculty members "always" 
teach in the fields of their graduate school specialization, and the 
remaining 47% report that they "usually" do so. 

The research scholarship of the Ph.D. -training history faculties 
is impressive, measured in quantitative terms (see Table 6-5). 



Table 6-5 

Scholarly Publication by 1,121 Members of Ph.D. -Training 
History Faculties in 77 Institutions, 1958-1959 



Type of publication 



% of total faculty having 
published 

% of total faculty publish- 
ing within last five years 

% of publishing faculty who 
have published on subject 
other than Ph.D. disserta- 
tion topic 



Nation 



82 
76 

82 



Top 
seven 
insti- 
tutions 



94 



92 



East 



77 
66 

79 



South 



80 
72 

79 



Mid- 
west 



86 
84 

83 



West 



87 
86 

92 



More than four-fifths of the faculty members have published 
"books or articles in scholarly journals," and 76% have done so in 
the last five years. The seven most prestigious faculties publish 
more (98%; 94% in the last five years). 

Members of Ph.D. -training faculties who teach the history of 
foreign areas are in every part of the nation a well-traveled group. 
Only 5% of them have never "traveled or studied in the area of 
their teaching specialty"; 14% were born in the area of specialty. 
In 1958-1959 two-thirds had traveled or studied in their major 
areas of interest within the last Rye years (see Table 6-6). 



118 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



Table 6-6 

Foreign Travel and Study of 674 Specialists in 
History of Foreign Areas, 77 Ph.D. -training 
Institutions, 1958-1959 





Nation 


East 


South 


Midwest 


West 


Status 


































No. 


% 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


A. Per cent of total history 






















faculty teaching his- 






















tory of foreign areas 


674 


49 


259 


48 


118 


40 


192 


57 


105 


54 


B. Per cent of A abroad 






















during last five years 


458 


68 


166 


64 


83 


70 


133 


69 


76 


72 


C. Per cent of A never 






















abroad 


34 


5 


7 


3 


10 


8 


15 


8 


2 


2 


D. Per cent of A born in 






















area of specialization 


98 


14.5 


57 


22 


8 


7 


22 


11 


11 


10 



Should a history faculty have strength in only one field or in 
several fields of history before offering the doctorate? If in several, 
which fields? The 1958 Ph.D.s were asked to name any fields they 
thought must be covered in order to provide "minimum satisfactory 
Ph.D. training." Modern European and United States history were 
rated as "indispensable" by 88% and 85% of the Ph.D.s respec- 
tively. Coverage of the following fields was rated as "indispensa- 
ble" or as "strongly desirable" (percentages of Ph.D.s answering 
for each field are shown in parentheses) : (a) modern European 
(93%); (b) United States (92%); (c) English and British Com- 
monwealth (78%); (d) medieval (78%); (e) Russian-East Eu- 
ropean (70%); (/) ancient (63%); (g) Far Eastern (61%); 
and {h) Latin-American (47%). Most graduate faculties would 
probably agree that a desirable faculty strength for doctoral train- 
ing would include experienced and able faculty members in modern 
European and United States history plus at least three of the six 
other fields noted by the 1958 Ph.D.s. 

A number of institutions award the doctorate only in United 
States history, and many others only in two or three fields of 
history. Tables 6-7 to 6-10 show the number of new Ph.D.s in 



PH.D. -TRAINING INSTITUTIONS 



119 



Table 6-7 

Ph.D.s in Various Fields of History Awarded by 29 Institutions 
in the East, 1955-1959 (5 Years) 



Institution 



American 

Boston College. . 

Boston U 

Brown 

Bryn Mawr 

Buffalo 

Catholic 

Clark 

Columbia 

Cornell 

Fordham 

Georgetown .... 
George 

Washington . . 
Harvard- 

Radcliffe 

Johns Hopkins . . 

Lehigh 

Maryland 

NYU 

Penn. State 

Pennsylvania — 

Pittsburgh 

Princeton 

Rochester 

Rutgers 

St. John's 

Syracuse 

Tufts 

West Virginia. . . 
Yale 

History field 
totals f 



U.S. 



11 
3 

54 
5 

12 

15 



45 

10 
1 
3 

22 
3 

19 
8 
5 

15 
5 

10 
3 
1 
4 
6 

285 



Mod- 
ern 
Eu- 
ropean 



15 



10 



184 



Eng- 

lish- 

Br. 

Com.* 



7 

43 



Latin 
Amer- 
ican 



16 



An- 
cient 



Med- 
ieval 



Russian- 
East 
Eu- 
ropean* 



Asian 



Other 



* Some institutions reported Ph.D.s in English history and in Russian history^as 
modern European history. 

f The total number of history doctorates awarded, the sum of the field totals on this 
line, was 634. 



120 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



Table 6-8 

Ph.D.s in Various Fields of History Awarded by 17 Institutions 
in the South, 1955-1959 (5 Years) 



Institution 


U.S. 


Mod- 
ern 
Eu- 
ropean 


Eng- 

lish- 

Br. 

Com.* 


Latin 
Amer- 
ican 


An- 
cient 


Med- 
ieval 


Russian- 
East 
Eu- 
ropean* 


Asian 


Other 


Alabama 

Duke 


3 

13 
11 

5 

8 
1 
7 
4 

30 
7 
2 
5 
3 

26 
2 

12 

16 

155 


1 

8 
2 

1 
1 

6 

1 
1 

8 

1 
30 


5 

1 

2 
8 


5 

4 

1 
1 
2 

15 

2 

1 
31 





2 
2 










Emory 




Florida 




George 

Peabody 

Georgia 

Kentucky 

Louisiana State 
North Carolina 

Oklahoma 

Rice 

South Carolina 

Texas Tech 

Texas 

Tulane 




Vanderbilt 

Virginia 

History field . . 
totalsf 






* Some institutions may have reported Ph.D.s in English history and in Russian his- 
tory as modern European history. 

t The total number of history doctorates awarded, the sum of the field totals on this 
line, was 226. 

each of the major geographical fields in the period 1955-1959. 
These statistics are not complete indices of the fields of history in 
which Ph.D. training is offered by the various universities but they 
suggest the degree of activity in each of the major geographical 
fields. These tables are based upon reports on 1,458 Ph.D.s, 96% 
of all the history Ph.D.s awarded in the nation during the five-year 
period 1955-1959. Tables 6-7 to 6-10 show clearly the relativity 
of size in Ph.D. programs. A department that trains two Ph.D.s 



PH.D.-TRAINING INSTITUTIONS 



121 



Table 6-9 

Ph.D.s in Various Fields of History Awarded by 17 Institutions 
in the Midwest, 1955-1959 (5 Years) 



Institution 



Chicago 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Loyola (111.).... 
Michigan State 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Missouri 

Nebraska 

Northwestern. . . 
Notre Dame 

Ohio State 

St. Louis 

Western Reserve 

Wisconsin 

History field 
totalsf 



U.S. 


Mod- 
ern 
Eu- 


Eng- 
lish- 
Br. 


Latin 
Amer- 


An- 
cient 


Med- 
ieval 


Russian- 
East 
Eu- 


Asian 




ropean 


Com.* 


ican 






ropean* 




19 


8 


12 


3 


1 


1 




3 


19 


14 


2 


3 


1 




1 




23 


6 


1 






1 








5 


4 


1 






1 








3 


3 
















4 


1 


3 


1 












2 




1 














10 


10 


5 




2 


1 






7 


23 


15 


8 




1 










9 


1 
















11 


4 


2 


1 




1 








13 


4 


2 


1 












4 


4 
















16 


6 


1 


1 




1 








9 


3 
















5 


2 


1 














36 


18 


12 






5 






1 


211 


103 


51 


10 


5 


11 




1 


11 



Other 



* Some institutions reported Ph.D.s in English history or in Russian history as modern 
European history. 

t The total number of history doctorates awarded, the sum of the field totals on this 
line, was 408. 



a year in United States history is not a large program, but the 
producer of two Ph.D.s a year in modern European history is 
among the 11 largest producers in the nation; and not even the 
largest programs award as many as two Ph.D.s a year in medieval 
or Asian history. 

The fields recent Ph.D.s think must be covered are the ones 
most often actually taught in the history departments that offer 
doctoral training, as Table 6-11 shows. These fields are most often 



122 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



Table 6-10 

Ph.D.s in Various Fields of History Awarded by 11 Institutions 
in the West, 1955-1959 (5 Years) 



Institution 



California (B). 

UCLA 

Colorado 

New Mexico. . 
North Dakota 

Oregon 

Southern 

California. .. 

Stanford , 

Utah 

Washington 

State 

U. of 

Washington . 
History field 
totalsf . . . . 



U.S. 


Mod- 
ern 
Eu- 


Eng- 

lish- 

Br. 


Latin 
Amer- 


An- 
cient 


Med- 
ieval 


Russian- 
East 
Eu- 


Asian 




ropean 


Com.* 


ican 






ropean* 




22 


6 










2 


7 


12 


3 


7 




1 


2 






6 


2 












1 


4 
















1 
















5 


2 














17 


3 


5 










2 


16 


17 


1 










7 


2 


•• 














3 
















9 


1 












4 


97 


34 


13 


11 


1 


11 


2 


21 



Other 







* Some institutions may have reported Ph.D.s in English history or in Russian history 
as modern European history. 

f The total number of history doctorates awarded, the sum of the field totals on this 
line, was 190. 

taught as "advanced" courses, open to both upper-division under- 
graduates and graduate students. Courses most often taught ex- 
clusively for graduate students include United States, modern 
European, and English-British Commonwealth history; historiog- 
raphy; methodology; medieval, Latin- American, and diplomatic 
history. 

Expansion since 1948 has been accomplished chiefly in fields al- 
ready well developed. Table 6-12 shows the types of courses de- 
partments most often report as additions or deletions since 1948. 
It may be supplemented by Table 6-13. (These tables might be 
compared with college data presented in Chapter 4.) The increases 



PH.D. -TRAINING INSTITUTIONS 



123 



Table 6-11 

Percentages of 77 Ph.D. -training Institutions Offering 
Courses in Various Fields of History at 3 Levels 



Field of history- 



United States 

Western civilization 

English-British Commonwealth . 

Modern European 

Ancient 

Medieval 

Latin- American 

Far Eastern 

State 

Russian-East European 

General education course 

World 

Interdisciplinary course 

Economic 

Religious 

Cultural-intellectual 

Constitutional 

Near Eastern (incl. Indian) 

Diplomatic 

Historiography 

Military 

History of science 

Social 

Methodology 

Philosophies of history 

African 



% offering 
at introduc- 
tory level 



87 

68 

58 

57 

55 

53 

38 

31 

23 

22 

21 

18 

13 

9 

9 

8 

6 

6 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

3 

3 

1 



% offering 

at advanced 

level 



90 
8 
90 
92 
70 
91 
77 
71 
38 
82 
4 
6 
25 
57 
30 
79 
64 
39 
69 
40 
21 
30 
62 
21 
16 
13 



% offering 
exclusively 

for grad. 

students 



83 



60 

74 

27 

47 

44 

27 

14 

27 

1 

5 

19 

19 

10 

26 

18 

8 

39 

66 

5 

6 

22 

53 

17 

3 



reported in the top two or three fields are in large part accounted 
for by expansion of existing courses in the ten-year period. Ex- 
pansion in several other fields reflects the development of new 
courses and programs, especially in Asian, Russian, and cultural- 



124 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



Table 6-12 

Types of Courses Reported at Least 3 Times as Added or Dropped, 
1948-1958, in 77 Ph.D. -training History Departments 



Type of history course 



United States 

Asian 

Cultural-intellectual 

Modern European 

Russian-East European 

Social 

Economic 

Latin- American 

History of science 

English-British Commonwealth 

World history or Western civilization 

Medieval 

Recent 

Historiography 

Methodology 

Diplomatic 



No. of times 


No. of times 


reported added 


reported dropped 


45 


7 


33 





30 





19 


5 


18 





10 





8 


1 


7 


2 


6 


o 


6 


1 


6 





5 


1 


5 





4 





3 





3 






intellectual history and the history of science. The expansion that 
is contemplated in the decade after 1960 parallels rather closely the 
expansion that has actually been accomplished in the past decade. 

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION 

Some features of the undergraduate programs of institutions 
that offer the doctorate in history are noteworthy. One is particu- 
larly striking: five-sixths of the departments report that all their 
faculty members teach undergraduates as well as graduate students. 
Only 4 to 5% of the entire faculty of the nation's Ph.D. -training 
history departments are reported to be teaching graduate students 
exclusively. Here is an important corollary to the fact that two- 
fifths of the history teachers in the better colleges teach graduate 
students as well as undergraduates. Clearly history instructors who 



PH.D.-TRAINING INSTITUTIONS 



125 



Table 6-13 

Notable Enrollment Increases and Decreases, 

1948-1958, in Various Types of Courses in 

77 Ph.D. -training History Departments 



Type of history course 



Specialized, United States 

Specialized, modern European 

Russian-East European 

United States survey 

European survey or Western civiliza- 
tion 

Ancient 

All history courses 

Asian 

Medieval 

Seminars or methodology 

Historiography or philosophies of 
history 

English-British Commonwealth 

La tin- American 

Topical 

Graduate-level generally 

Urban 



No. of times 


No. of times 


reported more 


reported more 


than 20% larger 


than 20% smaller 


in 1958 than in 1948 


in 1958 than in 1948 


29 


25 


23 


11 


21 


2 


21 


5 


16 


8 


15 


5 


14 





11 


1 


10 


9 


6 





5 





5 


30 


3 


11 


3 





3 


1 


1 






find positions in departments that offer doctoral training should 
be prepared to be successful teachers of undergraduate students. 
The second feature of the undergraduate program of these de- 
partments that is of special relevance here is that certain courses 
are commonly required of all undergraduates or of large groups 
of them. In some institutions more than one history course is 
reported as a requirement. Thus 34% report a requirement of 
Western civilization, world history, or modern European history, 
and 26% report a requirement of United States history. In some 
Ph.D. programs students specializing in United States history have 



126 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



especially benefited from the post- 194 5 trend toward requiring 
United States history or American civilization for graduation, since 
doctoral candidates often help defray the expenses of graduate 
education by teaching such survey courses. The over-all amount 
of history required for graduation in 1958-1959 was about the 
same as ten years earlier; 15% of the departments report "more" 
and 11% say less. 

The Ph.D. -training departments are only about 4% of the insti- 
tutions of higher learning in the nation, but they accounted for 
more than one-fourth of all the history majors graduated in 1958. 
As was noted in Chapter 4, half the better colleges reported that 
10% or more of their bachelor's graduates of 1958 were history 
majors; more than half (58%) the Ph.D. -training history depart- 
ments claim such percentages (see Table 6-14). It appears, there- 
fore, that undergraduate teaching of history may be in even 
stronger condition in these institutions than in the better colleges. 



Table 6-14 

History Majors, 1956 and 1958, in 71 Institutions 
Offering Ph.D. Training in History 















%of 














institu- 








No. of depart- 






tions in 








ments in 1958 




Average 


which 








graduating few 


Increase, 


No. of 


history 




Gradu- 


Gradu- 


and many majors 


1958 


graduat- 


rates 


Region 


ating 


ating 




over 


ing ma- 


among 


majors, 


majors, 




1956, 


jors per 


top 3 




1956 


1958 




in No. of 


depart- 


disci- 


















majors 


ment, 
1958 


plines in 
number 








Under 


Over 






of 








30 


70 






majors, 
1956-1958 


East 


1,010 


1,097 


10 (42%) 


4 (17%) 


9% 


46 


74 


South 


440 


593 


11 (61%) 


2 (11%) 


35% 


33 


80 


Midwest . . . 


637 


734 


4 (24%) 


3 (18%) 


15% 


43 


69 


West 


680 


803 


5 (42%) 


5 (42%) 


18% 


67 


70 


Nation 


2,767 


3,227 


30 (42%) 


14 (20%) 


17% 


45 


74 



PH.D. -TRAINING INSTITUTIONS 127 

Another feature of undergraduate programs in Ph.D. -training 
history departments that must be noted here is the tremendous 
variation in size of the enrollments in history courses. In every 
region a number of departments were much smaller and much 
larger than the average. The following are the smallest and largest 
enrollments reported by single departments for the first term of 
1958-1959: East: 120 and 3,120; South: 444 and 3,256; Midwest: 
659 and 4,541; and West: 579 and 4,148. With an enrollment of 
about 1,700 students in 1958-1959 (1,500 in 1956-1957) the 
average history faculty offering doctoral training is giving much 
of its time and thought to the education of undergraduate students. 
It is obvious that with such variations in enrollment the circum- 
stances of instruction must vary widely from campus to campus. 

TEACHING CONDITIONS 

The most common form of instruction in the Ph.D. -training 
history departments is the lecture, as might be expected. The fresh- 
man survey courses in these departments very often have large 
enrollments. In these cases large sections are commonly divided 
into discussion sections for one meeting each week, with graduate 
students leading some or all of the discussion sections. In the nation 
as a whole, half the departments report that one course or more is 
given by these combined forms of instruction. The only region in 
which this is rare is the South. Other forms of instruction are 
shown in Table 6-15. They are provided chiefly for graduate stu- 
dents and undergraduate history majors (cf. Chapter 4). 

Table 6-15 

Various Forms of History Instruction Offered by 
77 Ph.D. -training Institutions, 1958-1959 

Form of instruction % of institutions reporting 

Seminars 95 

Directed Readings 76 

Honors Work 44 

Instruction to Individual Student 40 

Tutorial Work 21 



128 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

In appointing new instructors the Ph.D. -training history de- 
partments understandably are more concerned about their poten- 
tialities for scholarly research than are the college departments. 
Asked to list the most important criteria in making appointments 
to their faculties, all the departments mentioned scholarly publi- 
cation or potentialities for it. But these departments also look for 
good teachers. Thus 8 8 % of them list teaching experience or prom- 
ise of successful teaching among their criteria in making appoint- 
ments and 43% list personality, character, or general intelligence, 
all of which contribute to good teaching. 

Evaluations of the teaching ability of new Ph.D.s by the de- 
partments that trained them have been found to be "very valuable" 
by almost half the Ph.D. -training departments, but "not especially 
helpful" by 30%. 

Many of the departments more or less systematically take steps 
to ascertain for themselves the success of new appointees as teachers 
of history. While 42% of the departments directly observe the 
new teacher in his classes (at least in some cases), 44% report that 
they do not (many explicitly oppose this). Enrollment trends 
admittedly are viewed as at least a partial index of successful teach- 
ing by 43 % of the departments. Formal or informal student com- 
ments are acknowledged by four-fifths to be a partial element in 
the evaluation of the success of a new teacher; and three-fifths 
report that they "size up" the new man in conversation, depart- 
mental meetings, or committee work. Some 88% of the depart- 
ments report that through conversation (sometimes formal but 
more usually informal) older faculty members seek to help new 
instructors become more successful teachers. Three institutions 
report orientation programs for new teachers. In a number of 
institutions — including Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin, 
Oklahoma, and Oregon — special awards are offered for excellence 
in teaching. Teaching of a high quality is generally expected in 
the departments of history that offer doctoral training. 

The faculty member in these departments has obligations to 
graduate students and to research scholarship that are not easily 



PH.D.-TRAINING INSTITUTIONS 129 

measured in terms of hours of teaching, the number of separate 
courses requiring preparation, and the number of students enrolled 
in formal courses. Half the departments report that each faculty- 
sponsor in the two-year period 1956-1958 usually directed the 
studies of 3 to 6 Ph.D. candidates; 38% say the normal load was 
1 to 2 Ph.D. candidates, and 12% say it was more than 6. The 
highest numbers reported being directed by single sponsors were 
21 in the East, 19 in the South, 12 in the Midwest, and 10 in the 
West. 

The average (mean) member of a Ph.D. -training history de- 
partment in the period 1955-1959 was supervising the work of 
3 Ph.D. candidates each year (1.9 in residence and 1.2 off campus) 
and turning out 1 finished Ph.D. every three years. In addition, 
he was faculty sponsor or supervisor for 3 master's candidates in 
residence each year, and was turning out about 3 master's gradu- 
ates every four years. One authority has recommended that the 
graduate faculty member should direct no more than 4 or 5 resident 
students at work on Ph.D. dissertations, and that reduced teaching 
loads be provided for the professor who directs that many Ph.D. 
candidates. 7 Yet 62% of the departments make no reduction in 
the number of formal teaching hours of faculty members who 
direct master's and Ph.D. candidates. 

In view of their special obligations, the formal teaching loads in 
most of these departments are high, though the hours of teaching 
tend to be lower than in the colleges. Table 6-16 shows the teach- 
ing loads that 77 departments reported for 1,121 faculty members 
in the first term of 1958-1959. The average load was 8.8 hours per 
faculty member. Only 2 out of 5 faculty members taught no more 
than 8 hours; but 72% of those in the top seven Ph.D. programs in 
prestige (where there are most doctoral candidates to add to the 

7 Hayward Keniston, Graduate Study and Research in the Arts and Sciences at 
the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1959), 70. Dimock and Hawley 
(eds.), in Goals for Political Science, 265 , report that political scientists believe 
that "not more than 5 or 6 students can be given adequate supervision by even 
the best of teachers." 



130 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



Table 6-16 

Teaching Loads of 1,121 Members of History Faculties 
in 77 Ph.D. -training Universities, First Term, 1958-1959 



Hours of teaching 
per week 


% of faculty members teaching various loads 


Nation 


Top 

seven 


East 


South 


Mid- 
west 


West 


Some but under 6 hr 

6-8 hr 

1 9-10 hr 

11-12 hr 

13-15 hr 

More than 15 hr 


10 
31 
29 
27 

3 

0.2 


13 

59 
20 

7 

0.4 




15 

34 
24 
24 

3 

0.2 


8 
11 
31 

45 
4 
0.4 


8 

37 

36 

16 

3 




6 
41 
28 
25 

0.6 





faculty load) taught no more than 8 hours. In the South only 
one-fifth of the faculty in Ph.D. -training departments taught 
8 hours per week or less. It should be noted that 13% of all 1,121 
teaching loads represent reductions for administrative services. 

Should there be a maximum teaching load for professors who 
direct master's theses and doctoral dissertations in history? If so, 
how heavy should it be? The Ph.D.s of 1958 were asked these 
questions. Two-thirds of them would set the teaching load of an 
active member of a Ph.D. -training faculty at less than 9 hours a 
week. Half the 1958 Ph.D.s suggest that faculty sponsors of mas- 
ter's and doctoral candidates should teach no more than 60 students 
per term (undergraduates and graduates), and nine-tenths say no 
more than 100 students per term. In actuality, the average (mean) 
member of a Ph.D. -training department in the first term of 1958- 
1959 taught 99 students. Thus, without considering the extra 
burden of attention to individual graduate students, the student 
load of graduate faculty members is about the same as that of 
college instructors, and higher than the load that a majority of 
recent Ph.D. graduates believe should be maximal. Undergraduate 
classes on the average are much larger than in the colleges (see 
Chapter 4). Table 6-17 shows the variations in class size that were 



PH.D.-TRAINING INSTITUTIONS 



131 



Table 6-17 

Average Sizes of History Classes at Various Levels in 
77 Ph.D.-training Institutions, 1956-1957 and 1958-1959 







Average No. of students per 


class 




Type of 
history course 


Nation 


East 


South 


Midwest 


West 




1956 


1958 


1956 


1958 


1956 


1958 


1956 


1958 


1956 


1958 


Introductory, U.S. . . 
Introductory, other 
Advanced under- 


67 
57 


71 

70 


47 
35 


58 
50 


41 

44 


45 
53 


89 
61 


89 

77 


97 
98 


98 
107 


graduate, U.S. . . . 
Advanced under- 


38 


41 


30 


42 


23 


23 


51 


60 


48 


43 


graduate, other. . . 
Advanced under- 


27 


31 


26 


32 


20 


21 


33 


42 


29 


32 


graduate and 

graduate 

Exclusively for 
graduate students 


25 
9 


25 
9 


19 
9 


22 
10 


19 
8 


19 

7 


31 

10 


32 
11 


32 
11 


29 

7 



reported in this study. Classes at all levels tend to be smallest in the 
South. Classes at all levels increased in size between the fall of 1956 
and the fall of 1958. 

Service on committees is another demand that weighs heavily 
on faculty members in Ph.D.-training history departments. This 
survey solicited no data on committee service, but a number of 
departments reported that it handicaps both the teaching and the 
scholarly research of faculty members. On many campuses the 
number of standing committees or their membership can be reduced 
without damaging the principle or the practice of representative 
faculty government. And members of committees often can save 
time by making certain that they concern themselves with policy 
matters, leaving clerical routine and implementation of policy 
to others. The central question involved in this matter is: "How 
can the faculty participate most effectively in activities without 
either excessively diverting themselves from their basic duties or 



132 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

unwisely infringing on the proper and essential role and responsi- 
bilities of administration and management?" 8 



RESEARCH AND TEACHING 

A major function of the history faculty in a university is con- 
tribution to research scholarship. Graduate history faculties gen- 
erally agree that the obligation of a university to promote original 
scholarship is equal or almost equal to its obligation to educate 
undergraduates and to train future historians. If the universities 
do not foster historical writing it will not be allowed to languish, 
for it is too important for that; it will be done by individuals or 
institutions less able to guarantee its scholarly integrity. The uni- 
versity is obligated not only to support research scholarship but to 
make certain that it is of the highest quality obtainable. 

The insistence on publication in quantity in some universities 
and the insignificance of some research have inspired many criti- 
cisms of overemphasis on research publication. 9 Caplow and McGee 
write that "in the faculties of major universities . . . the evalua- 
tion of performance is based almost exclusively on publication of 
scholarly books or articles in professional journals as evidence of 
research activity." 10 The anxiety about overemphasis on publica- 
tion marks a great change since 1927, when Marcus W. Jernegan 
criticized graduate faculties for failing to give graduate students 
adequate instruction in the methods of research, and for being 
"unproductive." n 

To what extent are the current complaints about overemphasis 
on publication justified by practices in the institutions that offer 
the doctorate in history? Ph.D. -training departments were asked: 
"Is some scholarly publication required for promotion?" At one 

"Newburn, "Faculty Personnel Policies in State Universities," 141. 
"See, e.g., Barzun, The House of Intellect, 191 and passim. 
10 Caplow and McGee, The Academic Marketplace, 83. See also ibid., 81, 82, 
164, 221, 231 and passim, 

u Jernegan, "Productivity of Doctors of Philosophy in History," 18. 



PH.D. -TRAINING INSTITUTIONS 133 

level of rank or another, say 93% of the departments, publication 
usually is required. There are only slight regional variations in 
the response. The variations appear rather in the rank levels at 
which it is usually necessary to publish in order to be promoted. 
Only 6 departments specifically report that publications are neces- 
sary for promotion to assistant professor, but 20 say they are needed 
for the raise to associate professor; and 33 merely say that publi- 
cations are expected, not specifying the rank levels at which the 
expectation becomes operative. Since 12 departments specify the 
full professorial level, they probably promote a faculty member 
up to the associate professorship even if he has not published. 

Does research, as is so commonly stated, interfere with teaching 
in the Ph.D. -training departments? The departmental chairmen 
who completed questionnaires for this study usually report that 
it does not. Only 11% of the departments say "yes" in response 
to this question; 84% say "no." Rather, say the "no" respondents, 
research scholarship contributes to the quality of teaching done by 
history instructors at all levels. They often report that the amount 
of teaching is so great that "the development of history teachers 
as research scholars is retarded." Two-fifths (39%) report this 
to be the case. 

The Ph.D.s of 1958 were asked whether as graduate students 
they at any time received insufficient professional attention from 
their graduate faculties and if so, why. Almost half (46%) of the 
recent Ph.D.s "sometimes," "frequently," or "always" felt neg- 
lected by the graduate faculty. As they saw the situation, the 
chief causes were the preoccupation of faculty members with their 
own research or with administrative duties. Table 6-18 shows the 
frequency with which these and other causes of faculty neglect 
of doctoral candidates were reported by the recent Ph.D.s. It 
should be noted that 54% of the recent Ph.D.s report no sense of 
neglect by their graduate faculties, one more evidence of the varia- 
tion in conditions within training institutions. Caplow and McGee 
suggest that graduate students, as recruits to the profession, are 
less often neglected than are undergraduates. 12 

13 Caplow and McGee, The Academic Marketplace, 231-232. 



134 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

Table 6-18 

Factors Reported by History Ph.D.s of 1958 as Causes 
of Neglect of Ph.D. Candidates by Graduate Faculty 

% of total times all factors 
Factor believed to be cause of neglect were mentioned 

Preoccupation of faculty members with their own 

scholarship 25 

Preoccupation of faculty members with administra- 
tive duties 17 

Too many graduate students 15 

Belief by faculty that graduate students should work 

on their own 15 

Demands of undergraduate teaching 13 

Community or national service 10 

Other factors 5 

Alternating periods of concentration on research and concentra- 
tion on teaching improve the quality of instruction while en- 
couraging scholarly publication. Sabbaticals and grants for research 
leaves in summer or during the regular academic year are reported 
by 90% of the departments. A number of others report that they 
help secure off-campus grants for individual faculty members. 
Though these are available in an abundance never before known 
to American scholarship, they are still inadequate. In one way or 
another about 8 % of the faculty in Ph.D. -training history depart- 
ments managed to be on leave during the first term of 195 8-1959. 
At this rate each faculty member would be given a year's leave 
every twelve years, or half a year's leave every six years. Fortunately 
there are other types of support for research scholarship. Over half 
(55%) of these departments report that teaching loads are reduced 
to support faculty research; and 45% provide clerical help or 
research assistants. In addition, 1 out of 7 reports special funds 
for research travel and 1 out of 9 provides partial or complete 
subsidies for research publications. Two-fifths (39%) report that 
research materials are purchased, usually to be deposited in the 
university library. But with American universities in 1957-1958 



PH.D. -TRAINING INSTITUTIONS 13 5 

spending 2600% more for research than in 1939-1940, history 
departments lag far behind others in research opportunities. 13 

LIBRARY RESOURCES 

The strength of libraries in the Ph.D. -training departments con- 
ditions the quality of graduate training no less than the quality and 
quantity of faculty research. A university's own library is usually 
inadequate as the only base for Ph.D. dissertations. "Are disserta- 
tion subjects chosen which can be completely worked up on the 
spot?" In response to this question 11% of the departments say 
"never," 36% say "seldom," 29% say "sometimes," and 25% say 
"often"; none says "always." In acknowledgment of library inade- 
quacies, some Ph.D. programs provide financial assistance for doc- 
toral candidates who must travel to complete their dissertations. 
At least one-sixth of the 1958 Ph.D.s got some financial support 
from their graduate schools for dissertation travel; and 54% of the 
departments report that grants are sometimes provided Ph.D. can- 
didates when "considerable" dissertation travel is made necessary 
by "significant gaps in library holdings." (Cf. page 47.) 

How strong should library resources be before an institution 
offers doctoral training in history? Certainly they should provide 
a basis for intensive seminar research as well as for extensive reading 
in secondary sources. One director of graduate study has realistically 
estimated that a new Ph.D. program in modern European history 
should expect to spend "between $10,000 and $25,000 annually 
for several years" for library materials and that an established 
program should require "upwards of $4,000 per year" to sustain 
itself. 14 According to a recent report a Ph.D. program in Russian 

The problem of publishing studies that have been completed is still bother- 
some but it is not of as serious proportions as is usually believed, according to 
Rush Welter, Problems of Scholarly Publication in the Humanities and Social 
Sciences (New York, 1959), 66-68 and passim. Nathan D. Pusey in an address 
at the University of North Carolina, October 12, 1960, cited the increase of 
2600%. 

14 George V. Taylor in Snell (ed.) , European History in the South, 23. 



136 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

area studies "should have Russian language holdings of not fewer 
than 20,000 volumes, and an annual budget of not less than $10,000 
for the purchase of Russian language books." 15 The minimum 
library costs of a Ph.D. program in United States history may be 
less prohibitive, but even in this field a Ph.D. program is expensive. 

One index of library strength in Ph.D. programs in history is 
to be found in the over-all size of institutional libraries. They have 
changed drastically since Ph.D. training was begun. In 1890 only 
5 college or university libraries in the nation possessed more than 
100,000 volumes. In 1959 no less than 277 reported collections that 
large, and 19 institutions reported libraries with more than 1,000,- 
000 volumes. 16 There are great discrepancies in library resources 
among the institutions that offer the Ph.D. in history. In terms of 
smallest and largest library holdings, the following extremes are to 
be found: East: 165,000 and 6,617,243 volumes; South: 202,300 
and 1,400,000; Midwest: 327,403 and 3,200,000; and West: 150,- 
000 and 2,397,1 17. 17 

Library strengths are shown by regions and by prestige of 
Ph.D. -training programs in history in Table 6-19. The ratings of 
the Ph.D. programs that were used in compiling Table 6-19 were 
synthesized from evaluations made in 1959 for this study by 
Ph.D. -training history departments. It is apparent that the prestige 
rankings by historians closely parallel the actual library strength 
of the institutions. In average total volumes, volumes added in 
1958-1959, and average budgets for 1958-1959, the seven univer- 
sities that have most recently added Ph.D. programs are markedly 
weaker than even the third-rated older programs. It is especially dis- 
heartening that the newcomers, though building from smaller 
holdings, had budgets in 1958-1959 little more than half as large 
as the annual budgets in the 36 lower-ranked institutions. 

Black and Thompson (eds.), American Teaching about Russia, 101. 

16 Irwin (ed.), American Universities and Colleges, 8th ed., 40. (In 1901, 105 
years after the founding of the University of North Carolina, its library held 
fewer than 45,000 volumes; it was adding that many each year by 1959-1960, 
according to Louis R. Wilson, The Library of the First State University [Chapel 
Hill, 1960], 29.) 

17 Ibid., 15 3-1126 for statistics above. 



PH.D. -TRAINING INSTITUTIONS 



137 



Table 6-19 

Strength of Library Resources of 85 Universities 
Offering Ph.D. Training in History, I960 







%of 


Average 


Average 
(mean) 


Average 
(mean) 
No. of 
volumes 
added per 


Universities 


%of 
all 85 
univer- 
sities 


total 

volumes 

of all 

85 uni- 


(mean) 
total vol- 
umes per 
university, 


budget for 

books and 

periodicals, 

per uni- 






versities 


1959 


versity, 
1958-1959 


university, 
1958-1959 


21 universities rated in 












first rank as centers 












of Ph.D. training in 












history 


24.7 


55. 7 


2,077,836 


$338,569 


66,727 


21 universities rated in 






second rank as cen- 












ters of Ph.D. train- 












ing in history 


24.7 


19.6 


732,561 


$164,854 


31,921 


36 universities rated in 












third rank as centers 












of Ph.D. training in 












history 


42.3 


22.3 


487,398 


$121,361 


22,167 


7 universities that have 






inaugurated Ph.D. 












training in history 












since 1958 


8.2 


2.7 


275,628 
1,029,935 


$ 68,286 
$156,371 


14,389 
29,981 


30 universities in East . . 


35.3 


39.4 


21 universities in South 


24.7 


17.9 


669,618 


$177,562 


31,192 


19 universities in Mid- 












west 


22.3 


28.7 


1,185,097 
724,988 


$263,525 
$145,313 


46,201 
31,599 


15 universities in West 


17.6 


13.9 


Total sample of 85- • . 


100 


100 


902,409 


$185,693 


34,743 



source: Library strengths are from Mary Irwin (ed.), American Universities and Colleges, 
8th ed. (Washington, I960), 153-1126. Ratings of Ph.D. programs were made from evalua- 
tions made for this study in 1959 by Ph.D.-training history departments. 



138 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



SUMMARY 

Library potentialities, like other features of the nation's Ph.D.- 
training programs in history, reflect the tremendous gains that 
have been made in the twentieth century. The variety of condi- 
tions continues to illustrate Logan Wilson's generalization of almost 
two decades ago: "the weakest institutions struggle to keep alive, 
the average ones to maintain themselves or to improve their status, 
and the best to stay at the forefront." 18 

Berelson has concluded that "the range in quality of doctoral 
work from the worst to the best institutions is probably less, and 
considerably less, than the range in the colleges or the secondary 
schools." 19 This survey of the situation in a single discipline raises 
a good many doubts about this generalization. Berelson himself 
has recommended that rf over the visible future, the national load 
of doctoral study should be carried mainly by the presently estab- 
lished institutions of top and middle-level prestige." 20 

There are, however, no reliable systems of accreditation for 
Ph.D. programs already operating, much less watchdog committees 
to prevent the development of new ones. The Association of Amer- 
ican Universities has shied away from the suggestion that it publish 
a list of universities qualified to offer the Ph.D. 21 Regional accredit- 
ing associations find evaluation of doctoral programs "one of the 
leading problems" confronting them. 22 Each Ph.D. program is 
largely left to make its own way, and each tends to believe that it 
is stronger than it is usually considered to be by other Ph.D. pro- 
grams. 23 

"Wilson, The Academic Man, 157. 

18 Berelson, Graduate Education, 232. 

Ibid., 252; italics in original. 

^Hollis, Toward Improving Ph.D. Programs, 23, 25. 

23 Jennings B. Sanders in Lloyd E. Blauch (ed.), Accreditation in Higher Edu- 
cation (Washington, 1959), 12-13. 

^Caplow and McGee, in The Academic Marketplace, 45 and passim, confirm 
our own findings. 



PH.D.-TRAINING INSTITUTIONS 139 

In general, minimum assets for offering the Ph.D. in any field 
of history probably should be: (1) a history faculty of at least 
ten members in at least five broad fields of history, most of whom 
are experienced teachers whose scholarly contributions are recog- 
nized by fellow specialists; (2) financial resources for the assistance 
of graduate students and the support of faculty research; and (3) 
library resources upon which research seminars and the general 
education of history Ph.D.s can be based; this would seem to 
demand library assets stronger than most of the seven newest 
Ph.D. programs possess (see Table 6-19). 

Two- thirds or more of the recent Ph.D.s seem satisfied with the 
doctoral training they received, and most Ph.D. candidates will 
continue to find institutions of appropriate sizes and levels of 
prestige at which to pursue their professional training. If one-third 
of the total sample of 1958 Ph.D.s have doubts about whether they 
would seek doctoral training over again at the same place, it is not 
always because they took Ph.D. training in weak departments; for 
one-fourth of the Ph.D.s from the top seven institutions in prestige 
express the same doubts. 

Certainly there are advantages in attending large institutions. 
Logan Wilson has written that their training is "superior to that 
afforded by lesser universities where student competition sets a 
slower pace and research facilities are more limited." 24 On the 
other hand, the situation to which Elbridge Sibley pointed a dozen 
years ago continues to exist: "Statistics would add nothing signifi- 
cant to our common knowledge of the present extreme degree of 
overcrowding in many graduate departments, especially in those 
of the leading universities." 25 

Expected increases in numbers of graduate students do not make 
the inauguration of new Ph.D. programs necessary. 26 The increased 

u Wilson, The Academic Man, 29. 

25 Sibley, The Recruitment, Selection, and Training of Social Scientists, 53. 

26 A survey conducted in 1959-1960 by the U.S. Office of Education brought 
reports from 139 universities on capacity for expansion of doctoral programs. 
The sample presumably included almost all universities offering the Ph.D. in 
history. (The 139 universities accounted for 94% of all earned doctorates in 



140 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

numbers of applicants will enable the largest Ph.D. programs to 
raise admission standards and will make for better seminars in 
institutions that now have strong faculties and libraries but rela- 
tively small groups of graduate students. 

A fundamental and challenging problem for all Ph.D. pro- 
grams — new and old, large and small — will be the continued need 
to educate hundreds of undergraduate students while maintaining 
high standards in doctoral programs. 

the arts and sciences, 1957-1958.) Among programs in history, 73 reported that 
they could accommodate an additional 772 doctoral candidates "with present 
faculty and facilities." (Compare this with our own reports of 1,95 5 Ph.D. can- 
didates in residence in history in 1958-1959.) Chase, Doctoral Study, 26. 



Chapter 7 
DOCTORAL STUDY IN HISTORY 



A majority of history departments training Ph.D.s agree that 
the aim of doctoral training should be the education of "scholar- 
teachers." But, while 7% "put more emphasis upon teaching," 
one-fifth avowedly "put more emphasis upon research." Thus the 
quality most demanded in doctoral candidates is "research skill and 
zeal." This is mentioned as a top quality twice as often as any 
other. "Interest in teaching" and "general intellectual curiosity" 
are tied as the second most desired qualities, and these are closely 
followed by "skill in teaching." 

These variations in the aims of doctoral education are mani- 
fested in the detailed provisions of Ph.D. programs. This chapter 
shows how history faculties are currently training Ph.D. candi- 
dates. It describes the scope of Ph.D. study through a review of 
"field" requirements, surveys the forms of study, shows how 
student performance is tested in various examinations, and points 
to changes that are being contemplated. 

WHAT IS STUDIED: FIELD REQUIREMENTS 

Ph.D. candidates are usually expected to enroll in at least three 
academic years of graduate study ("residence") and it is common 
to specify that one academic year "in residence" must be spent at 
the institution awarding the doctorate. In actuality, however, it 

141 



142 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

is a rare student who completes Ph.D. training in three years of 
study. The usual "full course load" for first- and second-year 
graduate students in Ph.D. -training departments varies from 12 
hours — i.e., four courses (reported by 58% of the departments) — 
up to 15 hours (one-third of the departments) and down to 9 
hours (one-tenth of the departments). Just how much study is 
expected in terms of credit hours the history faculties are reluctant 
to state explicitly, for in doctoral studies evidence of qualitative 
scholarship is considered the goal and quantitative efforts only 
means toward the desired end. Two-fifths of the departments re- 
port that they "require" or "recommend" that doctoral candidates 
take 60 or more semester hours of graduate study, and almost two- 
thirds (62%) report 48 semester hours or more. The largest re- 
quirement reported — 90 semester hours — was cited by one of the 
least well-known departments. Only a small minority expect more 
than 70 hours of course work. 

The basic intellectual dilemma now involved in planning units 
of study for doctoral candidates was well stated in the early nine- 
teenth century by Leopold von Ranke: to understand universal 
history one must first know the specific events of history; but to 
know the specific one must first understand the universal. The 
accumulation of knowledge since Ranke's time has made the prob- 
lem enormously more difficult than it was in his day. One cannot 
master all of history. Deciding how much mastery Ph.D. candidates 
should demonstrate is complicated by practical considerations. 
First, the able Ph.D. candidate should earn the doctorate in no 
more than four years of full-time graduate study. Second, as a 
potential research scholar and teacher of advanced college students, 
he needs depth — the mastery of facts and materials in a specialized 
field of history. The units of historical study must be relatively 
small if this mastery is to be achieved. But, third, as a man, as a 
citizen, and as a teacher giving instruction in broad survey courses 
— and also as a scholar doing research and writing — the Ph.D. 
candidate needs breadth. This can be acquired most readily in the 
study of broad units of history. 

Large or small, the units of study in Ph.D. programs are usually 



DOCTORAL STUDY IN HISTORY 143 

called "fields." A number of very good Ph.D. programs define these 
fields broadly and have students study two fields. Some depart- 
ments require Ph.D. candidates to show some degree of mastery in 
three, four, five, or even six fields of history, each broadly defined 
(e.g., all of United States history as one field) . Most departments, 
unwilling to accept the superficial acquaintance with fields so 
broadly defined, divide history into several relatively small units 
of study. The divisions sometimes are (or may be) topical as well 
as geographical or chronological. Through the study of several rela- 
tively small fields in differing cultural areas and different periods 
of time, it is hoped that the Ph.D. candidate will acquire a sense 
of the universal in history. At the same time he is able to achieve 
considerable mastery in the field of his specialization, which is also 
restricted in size. 

Definitions of the fields of history and the number to be re- 
quired of Ph.D. candidates have never been uniform. By the late 
1930s the number of history fields required in various institutions 
ranged from 1 to 6, and most institutions also required 1 or 2 
fields in cognate disciplines. 1 Striking variations currently exist in 
field requirements. Data from the history Ph.D.s of 1958 show that 
when only 2 fields are required history departments usually define 
fields broadly (e.g., all of United States history as 1 field; all of 
modern history as 1 or 2 fields). Departments requiring 3 fields of 
history tend to define fields of medium scope (e.g., United States 
history as 2 fields; modern European history as 2 or 3 fields). In 
departments that require 4 fields the fields are likely to be small 
(United States history is usually treated as 2 fields but frequently 
as 3; modern European history is more often treated as 3 than 2). 
History faculties that require 5 or 6 fields of history restrict the 
fields even more; they tend to divide United States history into 
3 fields and modern European history into 3 or 4. 

A survey of the 1959-1960 graduate school bulletins of 49 
Ph.D. -training universities shows that 57% require 5 fields or 
more; 38% require 3 to 4 fields, and only 2 require only 2 fields 
(these numbers include fields in related disciplines when they are 

1 Hesseltine and Kaplan, "Doctors of Philosophy in History," 769-770. 



144 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

specifically required). Only one-fifth (18%) of the 49 institutions 
define fields broadly (e.g., all of modern European history as one 
field). While less than half (21) of the 49 Ph.D. programs in 
history require as few as 2 to 4 fields, all but 1 of the top-prestige 
programs require 2 to 4 fields. Since the top-prestige programs 
train the largest numbers of Ph.D.s, it is not surprising that two- 
thirds (64%) of the 1958 Ph.D.s took 2 to 4 fields of history. 

Usually history faculties demand that Ph.D. candidates achieve 
greater mastery in one field than in others. This is known variously 
as the "field of concentration," the "first field," or the "major field." 
Less concentrated work is expected in other fields ("minor," "first 
minor," or "second field"; and thus followed by "third field," 
"fourth field," etc.). When graduate study in another discipline 
is required it is sometimes described as a "minor," but also often 
as an "outside field." The bulletins of more than half the institutions 
(57%) explicitly require one outside field. Two-thirds of the 
Ph.D.s of 1958 were "required" (58%) or "encouraged" (8%) to 
study at least one outside field, and another 14% took such work 
on their own volition. While 5% more took work in two outside 
fields on their own volition, 6% were "discouraged by the faculty" 
from studying any outside field. 

Two surveys of recent Ph.D.s in history show that political sci- 
ence is the most popular cognate field. All other cognate fields are 
reported much less frequently. They include English, American, 
or other literature; economics; religion; philosophy; Education; 
sociology; and anthropology. 2 In the combined samples of 325 
recent Ph.D.s in history, none reported any graduate-level study of 
psychology, a field in which historians might profitably seek in- 
sights. 3 In general, like history majors and master's candidates, 
Ph.D. candidates have tended to study cognate fields that call for 
relatively little intellectual reaching out on their part. 

9 Prepublication data on 143 Ph.D.s from a study by the Southern Regional 
Education Board, 1958-1960; our own data on 182 Ph.D.s of 1958. 

8 See the American Historical Association presidential address by William L. 
Langer, "The Next Assignment," American Historical Review, LXIII (January, 
1958), 283-304; and the similar recommendation by Wilhelm Dilthey in the 
late nineteenth century. 



DOCTORAL STUDY IN HISTORY 145 



FORMS OF STUDY 



The program of study for the Ph.D. in history typically involves 
a combination of different types of instruction. Departments offer- 
ing doctoral training generally agree that lecture courses should 
constitute no more than half the "full course load" of graduate 
students, and less during the second than during the first year of 
graduate study. In an introductory "methods course" 4 or in re- 
search seminars the student becomes acquainted with the tools and 
techniques of critical historical research and develops his capacity 
for writing history. Students, it is generally agreed, should be en- 
rolled in research seminars during the first and second years of 
graduate study. One or more courses in historiography or the phi- 
losophies of history provide an awareness of the development, the- 
ories, potentialities, and limits of historical scholarship. Nine- 
tenths of the 1958 Ph.D.s believe a course in historiography or 
philosophies of history should be required of all doctoral candidates. 

With usually a minimum of guidance and supervision from 
a faculty member, Ph.D. candidates in directed reading courses — 
especially in the second year of graduate study — expand their 
acquaintance with historical literature and sharpen their ability to 
judge it critically. Many Ph.D. candidates are introduced to college 
teaching through participation in survey courses of the depart- 
ment in which they are studying for the doctorate. In some depart- 
ments their part-time instruction is critically supervised, and at 
least 11 departments offer either a course, a noncredit seminar, 
or an informal student-faculty colloquium on college teaching. 

Meanwhile, the Ph.D. candidate begins and carries out an in- 
tensive research project, presenting the results in a substantial 
treatise — the Ph.D. "thesis" or "dissertation." There is, too, always 
a great amount of independent reading required of him in prepara- 
tion for the various examinations that stand between the candi- 

A survey of a related discipline in 1951 recommended that a course in scope- 
and method during the first year of graduate study should be "an inflexible 
requirement of all graduate institutions." (From Dimock and Hawley [eds.], 
Goals for Political Science, 266.) 



146 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

date and the Ph.D. degree. Departments tend to agree that "indi- 
vidual reading" or "directed research" should constitute less than 
half of the Ph.D. candidate's program during the first and second 
years of graduate study, but more than half during the third year. 

In practice, lecture courses frequently make up half or more than 
half the course loads of first- and second-year graduate students. 
At their best, these lecture courses are given exclusively for gradu- 
ate students and have relatively small enrollments. Three-fifths of 
the Ph.D.s of 1958 as graduate students took no courses in which 
over 50 students were enrolled, and the overwhelming majority of 
those who did take them agree that they were not as valuable as 
classes in which fewer than 30 students were enrolled. Asked to 
rate nine types of work in terms of their value as "preparation for 
college teaching," the recent Ph.D.s rated lecture courses enrolling 
only graduate students seventh while lecture courses enrolling 
graduate students and advanced undergraduates were rated eighth. 
Only research seminars enrolling 11 or more students were rated 
lower than lecture courses. 

The Ph.D.s of 1958 emphasized the central importance of re- 
search seminars, however, by giving first rating to research seminars 
enrolling fewer than 1 1 students. In this strong preference for small 
seminars the recent Ph.D.s are in general agreement with the train- 
ing faculties: the overwhelming majority (about four-fifths) of 
the departments state that a seminar should have no fewer than 
3 students but no more than 12. As Robert G. Albion put it in the 
May, 1960, issue of the History Department Newsletter of Har- 
vard University, "the ninth or tenth student joining a seminar 
does something to damage its effective intimacy." Nine-tenths of 
the departments report that their research seminars usually enroll 
no more than 1 students, but large numbers of students and limited 
faculties cause frequent exceptions to be made. Half the depart- 
ments report giving at least one seminar in the period 1956-1959 
with 13 or more students enrolled. 

A majority (55%) of the Ph.D.s of 1958 took at least four 
semesters (or equivalent quarters) of research seminars for credit; 
25% took two semesters and 14% took three semesters. Three- 



DOCTORAL STUDY IN HISTORY 147 

fifths (61%) of the 1958 Ph.D.s took research seminars in two 
or more fields of history, and three-fourths (75%) state that all 
candidates should be required to take research seminars in at least 
two fields. (But in many programs United States history, e.g., is 
two or even three fields.) Half the 1958 Ph.D.s who took fewer 
than four semesters of research seminars report that "Ph.D. can- 
didates should be required to take more terms of research seminars 
than I took." 

The Ph.D.s of 1958 were asked to describe the characteristics of 
a seminar that they found "most useful." Their comments suggest 
that in an outstanding seminar some or all of the following factors 
are present. The instructor is provocative, demanding, critical, and 
yet encouraging. He is himself engaged in research and is informed 
about the history of the period and topic of the seminar. Intro- 
ducing students to the bibliographical aids, key sources, and major 
depositories of his field, the instructor somehow manages to convey 
to them the intellectual challenge and excitement that he himself 
finds in his work. He encourages a balance between initiative and 
aggressive competition on the one hand and, on the other, caution, 
humility, and a strong sense of responsibility toward past and pres- 
ent. By seeing that papers are prepared by deadlines and within 
specified space limitations, he develops disciplined work habits. 
He requires bibliographical and progress reports and, usually, one 
substantial research paper of each student. The instructor makes 
certain that each student's paper is criticized by all students in 
gentlemanly but vigorous and straightforward fashion, and adds 
his own critique. Comprehensiveness of research, critical use of 
evidence, logical inferences, technical competence, and literary 
style are thoroughly evaluated and improved. 

The 1958 Ph.D.s acknowledge that the success of a research 
seminar depends upon the students as well as upon the professor. 
The qualities needed in students if a seminar is to be outstanding 
are enviable ones. Among them are: superior intelligence; vigorous 
interest in the subject area; capacity for hard work under general 
supervision; a creative, imaginative, inventive turn of mind, tem- 
pered by critical faculties; initiative in finding sources and facts; 



148 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

courage to make decisions coupled with caution against making 
them prematurely and without necessary qualifications; systematic 
habits in organizing research and collecting data; competence in the 
use of foreign languages if the seminar treats the history of a foreign 
area; and ability to write lucid and vigorous prose concisely and in 
a well-organized pattern. All these qualities are needed as the re- 
search project is developed and the paper is prepared. Ability to 
perceive and accept correction, and sufficient resilience to capitalize 
upon self-disillusionment — these additional qualities are useful 
when the student's paper is exposed to criticism. 

These qualities in instructor and students can make a research 
seminar one of the most rewarding of all educational experiences, 
an apprenticeship that forms the very core of the education of his- 
torians. In seminars Ph.D. candidates come to know the excitement 
as well as the drudgery of scholarly research, the fun as well as the 
effort of historical writing. But too many or inadequate students 
and a slow-witted or uninterested professor can make the ex- 
perience a dreary travesty of scholarship. 

Directed reading courses for small groups are rated the third 
most valuable form of formal instruction by the Ph.D.s of 1958 — 
the first being small seminars and the second, "individual study or 
research under faculty supervision." As noted in Chapter 6, three- 
fourths of the Ph.D. -training departments offer directed reading 
courses. Whether in reading courses or independently, most Ph.D. 
candidates do much reading. Two-fifths (41%) of the 1958 
Ph.D.s estimate that they were expected to read more than 60 
books in their first field "apart from dissertation research." But 
one-third (37%) estimate that they were expected to read less 
than 40 books in their first field. In each field that is added some- 
what less reading is done, as is shown by Table 7-1. Most reading 
is done in English-language material: 58% of the 1958 Ph.D.s read 
fewer than 2 books in foreign languages while in graduate school. 
On the other hand, 25% read more than 10. 

The Ph.D.s of 1958 rate the doctoral dissertation as the fourth 
most valuable phase of training for college teaching. Four-fifths 
of the 1958 Ph.D.s (82%) strongly believe that the dissertation 



DOCTORAL STUDY IN HISTORY 



149 



Table 7-1 

Number of Books Recent History Ph.D.s Believe They Were 
Expected to Read in Various Fields of History 



Field 


No. of 

Ph.D.s 

reporting 

for each 

field 


% of total Ph.D.s taking each field 
and reading — 


0-20 
books 


21-40 
books 


41-60 
books 


More than 
60 books 


First 


153 
153 
126 

104 
63 
28 


10 
25 
36 
40 
43 
57 


27 
37 
36 
37 
41 
36 


22 
17 
17 
14 
11 
7 


41 


Second 


21 


Third 


10 


Fourth. . . 


8 


Fifth 


5 


Sixth 










should be a part of the training of "college" teachers of history, 
and there is no disagreement about this between the group teaching 
in colleges and the group teaching in universities. But members of 
graduate faculties may be surprised to learn that only one-fifth 
(22%) of the recent Ph.D.s in history describe the dissertation as 
an "indispensable" part of the training of "college" teachers. The 
percentages would probably have been different if the recent Ph.D.s 
had simply been asked to rate the value of their training experi- 
ences without regard to the value of these as preparation for teach- 
ing. Putting the question that way, Berelson found that the recent 
recipients of the Ph.D. even more often than graduate faculty 
members — and three-fourths or more of both — regard the disser- 
tation as the most valuable of all the facets of Ph.D. training. 5 

The dissertation is a major part of Ph.D. training. Graduate his- 
tory faculties generally agree that it should represent twelve to 
eighteen months of full-time work at research and writing. Dis- 
sertations often require more effort than this, and some faculty 
members strongly believe that they should require more. But a 
majority of graduate faculty members agree that doctoral disserta- 

5 Berelson, Graduate Education, 176. 



150 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

tions usually should be no longer than 300 typed pages in length 
(i.e., about 75,000 words) ; and although there is abundant oppo- 
sition to setting an arbitrary limit on the length of dissertations, 
a number of high-prestige Ph.D. programs have set 300 typed 
pages as the maximum acceptable length. The average (median) 
history dissertation of 1957-1958 seems to have been about 3 50 
pages in length, longer than those in most other disciplines. The 
shortest history dissertation of 1957-1958 was 145 pages long; the 
longest was over 1,000 pages in length. History dissertations of 
2,000 pages, while mercifully rare, have been approved by graduate 
faculties. Faculties training doctoral candidates generally agree, 
however, that dissertations should be evaluated according to quali- 
tative rather than quantitative standards (see Table 7-2). 6 

Table 7-2 

Average Lengths of Doctoral Dissertations 
of 1957-1958 in Various Disciplines 

Discipline Length in pages 

Political science 357 

History 352 

English 317 

Anthropology 311 

Economics 260 

Sociology 248 

Philosophy 242 

Zoology 124 

Psychology 106 

Mathematics 71 

source: Adapted from Bernard Berelson, Graduate Education in the United 
States (New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., I960), 181. 

What, then, is the dissertation supposed to be? It is, in the 
opinion of the training departments, at once a training experience 

8 The reader may readily form an impression of the scope of doctoral disserta- 
tions in history and current trends by consulting the lists published periodically 
by the American Historical Association. See, e.g., List of Doctoral Dissertations 
in History in Progress or Completed at Colleges and Universities in the United 
States since 1955 (Washington, 1958). 



DOCTORAL STUDY IN HISTORY 151 

and evidence of scholarly attainment in research, critical analysis, 
and writing. Two-thirds of the departments require students to 
explore original topics. A majority expect the dissertation also to 
be a contribution to knowledge, but only one-fourth demand the 
use of unpublished sources in dissertation research. Dissertations 
usually are detailed descriptive narratives. A few of the depart- 
ments encourage works of synthesis (10%); a few encourage crit- 
ical editing or translation (11%); but one-third (34%) of the 
departments state that works of synthesis are "not permitted" and 
at least half do not accept critical editing or translations as fulfill- 
ment of the dissertation requirement. 

A few graduate faculty members believe that the dissertation 
should be a publishable book. A larger number (but still a minor- 
ity) think it should be a work of publishable quality though it 
need not be published. About 1 out of 3 believes that the disserta- 
tion should be considerably reduced in scope and length and 
frankly viewed as a training exercise. It is worth noting, however, 
that the recent recipients of the Ph.D. surveyed by Berelson were 
less willing to regard the dissertation primarily as a training exer- 
cise than the graduate deans or members of graduate faculties; 
about half the members of all three groups favored less ambitious 
dissertations. 7 A majority of graduate faculty members in history 
favor somewhat reducing the scope and length of dissertations 
while continuing to demand that they be substantial scholarly con- 
tributions. 

Most members of Ph.D. -training history faculties believe stu- 
dents should start work on dissertation research fairly early in 
their graduate study. Most are willing for students to work on 
aspects of the dissertation in seminars or in doing the master's 
thesis, and a majority encourage this. For almost one-third (31%) 
of the Ph.D.s of 1958, the dissertation was, in fact, an outgrowth 
of the master's thesis; and two-thirds (64%) developed disserta- 
tions out of seminar research. Special dissertation-writing seminars 
exist at Princeton, Notre Dame, the University of Washington, 
and perhaps at a few other institutions. Two or three faculty' 

7 Berelson, Graduate Education, 174. 



152 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

members participate in the thesis writers* seminar at Princeton, in 
which chapters of dissertations are presented and constructively 
criticized. In most Ph.D. programs, however, the student works 
almost exclusively under the guidance of a single faculty member 
(his "sponsor" or "director") in preparing a draft of the disserta- 
tion. A faculty committee supervises the completion of the dis- 
sertation and is ultimately responsible for its acceptance or rejec- 
tion. 

The doctoral dissertation, net product of student and faculty 
labor, is fairly often the only substantial work of research scholar- 
ship in which the history Ph.D. engages in a lifetime. The disser- 
tation is rarely a historical masterpiece but it is sometimes the 
beginning of one. In preparing the dissertation all Ph.D. can- 
didates test, refine, and make sustained application of the prin- 
ciples of historical craftsmanship that they have been taught in 
research seminars. Since this process yields insight into history 
and historical writing that enriches college-level teaching, the dis- 
sertation stands with the research seminars at the very core of the 
training of historians. The student who completes one with adequate 
but restrained faculty help has achieved considerable maturity as 
a scholar. 



EXAMINATIONS 

Coming at intervals during the other work for the doctorate in 
history are a series of formal examinations that, by their nature, 
contribute to the training of Ph.D. candidates. 

Foreign language examinations constitute major obstacles on the 
way to the Ph.D. for many candidates. Though only about 14% 
of all high school students in the nation (1958) study even one 
foreign language, 8 most Ph.D. programs require candidates to pass 

8 Report by William R. Parker in Byrnes (ed.), The Non-Western Areas in 
Undergraduate Education in Indiana, 56. James Bryant Conant's observation 
during an intensive study of American high school education needs to be re- 
peated here: "Almost without exception, I found a deplorable state of affairs in 
regard to foreign languages." (From The American High School Today: A First 



DOCTORAL STUDY IN HISTORY 153 

reading knowledge examinations in two foreign languages. French 
and German are usually those preferred, but most Ph.D. programs 
allow the candidate who has good reasons for doing so to substitute 
another language (e.g., Russian) for French or German. Very 
often it is specified that the languages must be from different 
language groups (thus ruling out a combination of French and 
Spanish, two Romance languages) . At least one institution re- 
quires one ancient and one modern language. In a few institutions, 
including some excellent ones, members of the history faculty 
give the foreign language examinations, and in a few cases they are 
administered by a graduate school committee. More generally, how- 
ever, the examinations are given by the respective foreign language 
departments. In many universities they are based upon historical 
literature. Quite commonly students are allowed to use dictionaries 
for part or all of these examinations. 

Several departments have tried to ease the burden of the re- 
quirement without eliminating one of the languages. At Harvard, 
where formerly Ph.D. candidates were given only "pass" or "fail" 
on their examinations, letter grades of A to E are now assigned; 
it is possible for a candidate whose dissertation demands little or 
no use of foreign languages to pass the examinations with low 
grades. Still other institutions have made it possible for some or 
all students to complete the Ph.D. with a reading knowledge of 
only one foreign language. At Chicago and Northwestern only one 
foreign language is required. A few other institutions allow the 
substitution of other types of graduate training for one foreign 
language examination. Thus at Stanford the candidate may sub- 
stitute cognate courses for one of the foreign language examina- 
tions: "the proposed courses must form a coherent group and con- 
tribute more toward the candidate's proficiency in history than 
would a second foreign language." Still other Ph.D. programs, 

Report to Interested Citizens [New York, 1959], 69.) In 1958 only 44% of 
the public high schools of the United States offered foreign language instruction. 
By contrast, every secondary school child in the U.S.S.R. received instruction in 
one foreign language for six years, beginning in the fifth year of schooling. 
U.S. Office of Education, Soviet Commitment to Education, 10. 



154 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

instead of reducing the language requirement, have demanded 
early demonstration of competence in foreign languages. Cornell 
and, more recently, the University of California (Berkeley) re- 
quire students to pass one language examination before taking 
history courses for graduate credit. At least three other Ph.D. 
programs require that two foreign language examinations be passed 
before the student begins a second year (or the thirty-first credit 
hour) of graduate study. 9 

Because of the foreign language requirement, some students do 
not go beyond the master's degree; for others the master's examina- 
tion is the first insuperable obstacle. Three-fourths of the doctoral 
programs report that by the end of one year of graduate study or 
upon completion of the master's degree they formally discourage 
students who appear to lack promise of completing the Ph.D. 
degree. One-fourth of the programs seem to wait until the major 
Ph.D. comprehensive examination to offer formal discouragement 
to unpromising students. Some graduate history faculties might 
well ask themselves, therefore, if they are screening students as 
early, as continuously, as systematically, and as rigorously as they 
should. Faculty time and institutional funds as well as the student's 
investment are lost when a Ph.D. candidate, after three or more 
years of graduate study, fails to pass the major examination for the 
Ph.D. The loss is especially serious when the place the failing student 
has filled might have been occupied by a successful Ph.D. candidate. 

To avoid this loss, some 22 departments have established a special 
examination to screen candidates, test their progress, and discover 
shortcomings while there is time to remedy them. It is sometimes 
given early in master's training, but more often it is interposed 
between the master's and the major Ph.D. examination. In some 
departments this examination is especially designed for new stu- 
dents who have completed the master's degree in other institutions. 

* It may be worth noting that a committee of the American Political Science 
Association in 1951 recommended that "if there is any validity" in the foreign 
language requirement "it should be rigidly enforced, and at the very beginning 
of graduate study." (From Dimock and Hawley [eds.], Goals for Political 
Science, 274.) 



DOCTORAL STUDY IN HISTORY 155 

It is usually relatively brief and sometimes informal, but in one 
institution it consists of an all-day written test plus a two-hour 
oral test. At Chicago this examination is written; it can simul- 
taneously serve as an examination for the master's degree and (if 
passed at a sufficiently high level) pass the doctoral candidate in two 
of the five fields required for the Ph.D. This examination is known 
variously as the "validating," "qualifying," or "preliminary" ex- 
amination. 

The terms "preliminary" and "qualifying" are more commonly 
reserved for a more advanced examination, often also known as 
the "general" or "comprehensive" examination for the Ph.D. This 
is the major examination for the doctoral degree. A third of the 
Ph.D.s of 1958 know it as the "preliminary" examination, though 
the somewhat less common but second most prevalent term, "gen- 
eral," is more accurately descriptive of the usual scope of the 
examination. It is taken after two or more years of graduate study, 
normally after all course and foreign language requirements have 
been met, but before the dissertation has been completed. Usually 
the student is officially "admitted to candidacy" for the Ph.D. only 
after this examination has been passed; it is "preliminary" to admis- 
sion to candidacy. 

In most Ph.D. programs the general examination (as it will be 
called here) is given in two parts, written and oral. But there are 
variations. In five institutions the student's faculty committee can 
decide to make the test oral only, written only, or both; in a number 
of other institutions it is always one or the other, not both. The 
examinations, written and oral alike, test the candidate's knowledge 
and understanding of fields of history, not simply of history courses 
that have been taken. Princeton and perhaps a few other universities 
move the candidate from a written examination over several fields 
to an oral examination covering only the major field of history. 
A few other universities partly accomplish the same result — nar- 
rowing the scope of the oral examination — by giving a written 
examination over some of the fields and orally examining the can- 
didate over the other fields (cf. the Chicago practice, cited above). 
Several universities waive both the written and oral examination 



156 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

in one or more (but never all) of the required fields of study 
(Brown, Clark, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Princeton, Tufts, 
and Tulane). 

But for some reason, when both a written and an oral test are 
required as parts of the general examination, the oral usually covers 
more fields than the written examination. This can be illustrated 
from the experience of the Ph.D.s of 1958. Only one-third of those 
who were required to take work in 5 to 6 fields report that they 
took a written examination over that many fields; but half (47%) 
of them had to stand oral examination over 5 to 6 fields. 

Though it tends to cover more fields, the oral examination 
(usually lasting about two hours) is almost always briefer than 
the written examination. It appears that the written examinations 
always last at least four to five hours; in a number of departments 
they amount to twenty-five or more hours of work, sometimes 
distributed in two, three, four, or five parts. The written examina- 
tion typically includes broad questions designed to elicit long in- 
terpretative and comparative essays in which generalizations are 
supported by precisely stated factual information. Both written 
and oral tests usually seek bibliographical as well as factual knowl- 
edge. 

The number of professors present at the oral examination varies 
from one institution to another (three, four, £ve, six, or more). 
What the oral examination in history is like has been well sum- 
marized in the description George Lyman Kittredge once gave of 
the examination in English literature: "Questions test . . . the 
candidate's reading and thinking; ... his ability to give a good 
oral account of himself and of what he knows and thinks. Ques- 
tions are very varied; some are minute, some general, some specific, 
some vague. Some call for learning, some for nimbleness, some for 
thought." 10 The character of the oral examination helps to explain 
why the Ph.D.s of 1958 rate preparation for it above lecture 
courses as a valuable part of Ph.D. training. 

In short, the general examination is demanding. Ph.D. candi- 
dates fear it, learn from preparation for it, and complain about it. 

"Quoted by Wilson, The Academic Man, 47. 



DOCTORAL STUDY IN HISTORY 157 

The complaints most often heard are those Marcus W. Jernegan 
voiced in 1927: that the general examination often covers "more 
ground than should be expected of the candidate, and more minute 
memory-knowledge, in particular portions of the subject of his- 
tory, than should be exacted." 11 Student fears of the examination 
are often exaggerated. Usually the examination can be taken a 
second time if it is failed on the first attempt. An initial failure 
somewhat delays the progress of the candidate toward the degree, 
but students who have survived several years of graduate study 
are not often permanently barred from access to the doctorate by 
one failure in the general examination. And it should be reassuring 
to Ph.D. candidates to know that 93% of the 1958 Ph.D.s passed 
the general examination in only one attempt. 

When the general examination is out of the way and the disser- 
tation has been completed, in the classical pattern of doctoral 
training the candidate must "defend his thesis." Today this usually 
is done prosaically and in detail, chapter by chapter, as the disser- 
tation is written. Thus some departments believe that the final 
examination for the Ph.D. has become a superfluous formality. 
At Harvard and at Michigan the candidate's faculty committee can 
waive the final examination if the student's capacity has been 
proven in a satisfactory fashion. At Brown the final examination is 
not required. But in at least 60 Ph.D. -training departments (and 
probably more) an oral final examination follows completion of 
the dissertation. In 50 of the departments it normally covers only 
the dissertation or the field of the dissertation. But in 10 depart- 
ments it covers two or more fields; and one department at this 
point even adds a field over which the candidate has not previously 
been examined. 

Several years may elapse between the passing of the general ex- 
amination and the passing of the final examination, for the disser- 
tation is often slowly completed by Ph.D. candidates who teach 
full time in colleges with high teaching loads and inadequate 
library resources. In the fall of 1958, when Ph.D.-training depart- 
ments reported 1,95 5 Ph.D. candidates (post-master's students) 

"Jernegan, "Productivity of Doctors of Philosophy in History," 15. 



158 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

as "enrolled and on campus," they reported 1,210 others as not on 
campus but working toward completion of the Ph.D. In the fall 
of 1959 the U.S. Office of Education asked departments offering 
doctoral training to estimate the number of Ph.D. candidates who 
had completed all requirements except the dissertation "at least 
3 years ago" and whom they would be willing to recommend for 
a one-year fellowship "to enable them to finish the dissertation." 
History departments (58) reported 315 such persons, more than in 
any other discipline except Education and English-and-dramatic- 
arts. 12 Financial support for these people would enable many college 
teachers to complete the degree and thus raise their own morale 
along with the degree qualifications of the faculties on which they 
serve. 

SUMMARY 

Research seminars and the dissertation constitute the core of 
Ph.D. training in history. A majority of history Ph.D. candidates 
take at least four semesters of research seminars and a large majority 
of the recent Ph.D.s would supplement these with a course in 
historiography or philosophies of history for all doctoral candidates. 

The dissertation continues to be an original and a substantial 
study in which the Ph.D. candidate proves his capacity for critical 
research and literary craftsmanship. But there is a growing convic- 
tion in this as in other matters involved in graduate education that 
emphasis must be placed on quality of performance rather than on 
quantity of effort. 

Most history Ph.D.s now study several fields of history of 
medium or small scope, but only about one-third study more than 
four fields of history. About five-sixths study at least one cognate 
field. Research seminars are often taken in at least two fields. 
Lecture courses play a major part in doctoral training but are not 
popular among recent Ph.D.s. 

Most Ph.D. programs continue to require candidates to demon- 
strate reading knowledge of two modern foreign languages. But 

u Chase, Doctoral Study, 3 1 . 



DOCTORAL STUDY IN HISTORY 159 

two different types of modifications have been made in this require- 
ment in recent years: (1) a few Ph.D. programs have required 
examination in one foreign language for admission to graduate 
study in history, or have set early deadlines by which an examina- 
tion must be passed; but (2) a few other Ph.D. programs have 
reduced the requirement to one foreign language. It appears that 
few doctoral candidates offering United States history as a major 
field read foreign language material as part of their doctoral 
training, and interviews reveal that few use foreign languages in 
postdoctoral research. 

Most Ph.D. programs try to discourage students who show in 
master's training that they lack ability to do satisfactory work 
for the Ph.D. But some Ph.D. programs need to screen students 
earlier and more rigorously than they do. 

The general examination continues to be a serious trial for history 
doctoral candidates, though more than nine-tenths of all those 
who actually earn the Ph.D. degree pass it in only one attempt. 
What follows — completing the dissertation — is the obstacle in 
doctoral studies that most prolongs the process of earning a Ph.D. 
Financial aid that will enable Ph.D. candidates to complete the 
dissertation before accepting regular teaching appointments is the 
only real solution to this basic problem, though somewhat less 
ambitious dissertation topics can sometimes help. 

Candidates who complete satisfactory dissertations seldom — it 
appears — fail the final examination for the Ph.D.; its partial or 
complete abolition has been accomplished by at least three Ph.D. 
programs and is being considered by others. 

Until a few years ago direct efforts at teacher training had no part 
in Ph.D. programs in history, but many departments now make 
some attempt to prepare candidates as teachers of history (see 
Chapter 9). There is a widespread belief that more should do so, 
as the next chapter shows. 



Chapter 8 

MAJOR CRITICISMS OF PH.D. 
TRAINING 



Some dissatisfaction with graduate study in history is endemic. 
One can expect to find up to 1 5 % of the participants in graduate 
education unhappy about either present circumstances or future 
prospects. 1 On the other hand, a majority of the graduate faculty 
as a group — not just the history faculty — is conservative. It tends 
to cling to all the elements of training with which it has been 
familiar. Complacency with established training procedures is 
more commonly encountered than carping criticism. The one 
significant addition to Ph.D. programs for which graduate facul- 
ties generally show favor is training in teaching: this is supported 
by about 2 out of 5 members of arts and science graduate facul- 
ties. 2 Graduate faculties in economics, political science, sociology, 
and English tend to be slightly more critical of graduate education 

1 A complaint is judged worth noting when it is voiced by 15% of the re- 
spondents, says J. P. Elder in A Criticism of the Graduate School of Arts and 
Sciences in Harvard University and Radcliffe College from Those Who Took the 
Ph.D. at These Institutions between 1950 and 1954 (n.p. [Cambridge?], n.d. 
[1958?]), 13. Berelson has estimated that dissatisfaction "of the order of 20%- 
25%" is normal and should exist in so complex an enterprise (in Graduate 
Education, 217). The major criticisms reviewed in this chapter are voiced di- 
rectly or indirectly by more than 25% of the respondents. 

2 Berelson, Graduate Education, 206. 

160 



MAJOR CRITICISMS OF PH.D. TRAINING 161 

than history faculties. Faculties in all the humanistic disciplines are 
more dissatisfied than are those in the natural sciences. 3 

Against this perspective we can evaluate criticisms of doctoral 
training in history, criticisms reported by Ph.D. -training faculties, 
graduate students, recent Ph.D.s, departmental chairmen and 
executives in the colleges, and editors who read the scholarly con- 
tributions of recent as well as older Ph.D.s. Each group that was 
questioned tends to reflect its own position in its major criticisms 
of graduate study. The colleges most often want Ph.D.s to be 
better prepared as college teachers. Graduate students also want 
more teacher training. Recent Ph.D.s call for more faculty guidance 
and greater breadth of training. The editors want more successful 
preparation for research scholarship and for effective writing. 

But each group voices several criticisms that overlap. Thus in 
these groups there is major concern about (1) the preparation of 
Ph.D.s as teachers of history, 4 (2) breadth in Ph.D. training, and 
(3) protracted Ph.D. programs. There is somewhat less general 
but noteworthy concern about (4) the quality of history Ph.D.s 
as scholars. These are the areas of criticism that will be reviewed 
in this chapter. 

PREPARATION FOR COLLEGE TEACHING 

In 1956 Dexter Perkins reminded fellow historians that they 
tended "to exalt the written over the spoken word." He suggested, 
however, that the "best chance of making some impact on others 
will come through the influence we can exert in the classroom, 
through the enthusiasms we kindle, through the interests we 
arouse, through the wisdom that history teaches and that we can 
strive to disseminate." 5 

Widespread approval of the Perkins address suggested that 
graduate history faculties should give more attention to teacher 

Ibid., 205. Since the scientists have fewer financial worries, one may guess that 
this conditions their outlook on graduate education. 

* The editors were asked only about qualities of scholarship. 
5 Dexter Perkins, "We Shall Gladly Teach," 293. 



162 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



preparation in training doctoral candidates. This survey has verified 
the existence of a large demand for more direct efforts at teacher 
training in the graduate schools. This is, by a large margin, the 
number-one criticism offered by history graduate students, as 
Table 8-1 shows. Three-fifths of the graduate students in history 

Table 8-1 

Criticisms of Graduate Schools by about 2,780 
Graduate Students, 1958-1959 



Criticisms rated as "valid" or 

"somewhat valid" by one-fourth 

or more of the respondents 


% of history 

graduate students 

(about 300) 


% of all graduate 

student 

respondents 

(about 2,780) 


1. Not enough training for teaching. . . . 

2. Too many formal "hurdles" 

3. Encourages overspecialization 

4. Stifles creativity of students 


60 
46 
45 
36 

32 

29 

29 
28 
28 

25 


49 
51 

44 
37 


5. Accepts and encourages more students 

than it can place in desirable jobs 

6. Training has little to do with jobs 

students will get 


23 
27 


7. Faculty members tend to build re- 
search empires 


33 


8. Admission standards too low 

9. Not enough training for research. . . . 
10. Rewards conformity and punishes 

individualism 


26 
26 

28 







source: Data provided by the National Opinion Research Center. 



regret the lack of training for teaching. Two-fifths of the recent 
Ph.D.s who hold full-time college teaching positions are less than 
enthusiastic about their doctoral training as preparation for college 
teaching (see Table 8-2). Improved training of doctoral candi- 
dates for teaching was, next to better faculty guidance and greater 
breadth, the third most common recommendation they would make 
to the history departments in which they took Ph.D. training. 
It is important to note in this connection that half (52%) of 



MAJOR CRITICISMS OF PH.D. TRAINING 163 

Table 8-2 

Evaluations by 152 History Ph.D.s of 1958 of Their 

Doctoral Training as Preparation for College 

Teaching 

% of 152 Ph.D.s 
Rating holding college 

teaching positions 

More than adequate 25 

Very well suited 34 

Fairly well suited 24 

Just adequate 6 

Somewhat less than adequate ... 9 

Very inadequate 3 

the 1958 Ph.D.s report that examples set by their graduate schools 
made them feel that good teaching was not as important as research 
and writing. Only 10% were made to feel that good teaching was 
more important than research and writing. Yet, two-thirds to 
three-fourths of the 1958 Ph.D.s undertook graduate study in 
history chiefly to prepare for careers in college teaching (see Table 
8-3). 

Table 8-3 

Reasons Why 182 History Ph.D.s of 1958 
Undertook Graduate Study 

% of Ph.D.s citing 
Reason cited each reason 

1. Chiefly to prepare for a career in college teaching 66 

2. To prepare for a career in college teaching and to learn 

more about the history of one country or area or topic 

(each in about equal degree) 12 

3. Chiefly because of a desire to learn more about the history 

of one country or area or topic 9 

4. To prepare for a career in research and writing 2 

5. To prepare for government work 1 

6. Other reasons 10 

College employers of new Ph.D.s agree emphatically about the 
need to improve teacher training: this is the most common criticism 
of doctoral training from departmental chairmen in the colleges. 



164 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



About half of all the recommendations offered by junior colleges 
(54%), selected four-year colleges (48%), and other four-year 
colleges (44%) call for more systematic efforts to train doctoral 
candidates as teachers (see also Table 8-4). College presidents, 



Table 8-4 

Frequency of Recommendations for More Specific Teacher 
Training from 126 Selected Four-year Colleges 





Percentages, departments recommending 
more teacher training 


Type of college 


% of those returning 
questionnaires 


% of those making 

recommendations 

of any kind 


Teachers' colleges 


44 
35 
30 
33 
33 


80 


General colleges* 


62 


Professional colleges 


75 


Catholic colleges 


50 


Total sample 


62 







* Public, private, or sectarian liberal arts colleges. 

even more unanimously than departmental chairmen, call for im- 
proved teacher preparation in Ph.D. training. Large numbers of 
historians on Ph.D. -training faculties in 1959 readily admitted in 
interviews that more systematic efforts to prepare and check on 
doctoral candidates as teachers are needed. And while the chairmen 
of the training departments offered few recommendations at the 
end of a long questionnaire, the few who did so called more often 
for deliberate teacher preparation than for any other measure to 
improve "graduate training for college teachers of history." 

It is important to note the nature of the teacher preparation 
called for by the historian-critics. More than anything else they 
want what Hayward Keniston has called "a new attitude of respect 
for the dignity of the teaching career." 6 The president of a noted 

8 Keniston, Graduate Study and Research in the Arts and Sciences at the Uni- 
versity of Pennsylvania, 100-101. 



MAJOR CRITICISMS OF PH.D. TRAINING 165 

liberal arts college warns that the attitudes of graduate school 
faculties are of crucial importance: "If they are willing to convey 
a real enthusiasm about the central importance of teaching, their 
students will take it seriously. If they convey the idea that it is 
quite secondary ... no amount of 'teacher training' will help us." 
Professor Perkins sounded the same advice for the training of 
future teachers in his American Historical Association address: 
"If our work is central to us, it will become central to them." 7 

Two other points about the recommendations for teacher train- 
ing must be made most emphatically. First, they are not aimed at 
making Ph.D.s into "pitchmen," mental manipulators who know 
all the tricks that can "sell" their subject to students who are 
reluctant to buy. The aim, it is generally believed, is to instill in 
Ph.D. candidates some of the qualities of great teachers of history 
that were noted earlier in this study (see Chapter 4). The Com- 
mittee of Fifteen in 195 5 briefly summarized the kind of teacher 
that is portrayed as desirable in the recommendations gathered by 
this study: "a person who can stimulate his students to think 
critically, to understand deeply, and to solve problems success- 
fully." 8 Second, the recommendations leave no doubt that pro- 
fessional educators (those whose field is Education) should have 
no part in the deliberate efforts to prepare Ph.D. candidates in his- 
tory as college teachers. What is desired is a twofold program con- 
ducted by the history faculties and offering (1) supervised teach- 
ing experience and (2) formal or informal orientation in the 
professional methods, functions, and mores of a college teacher of 
history. 

The demand for teaching experience for Ph.D. candidates is 
vigorously raised by the college employers of history Ph.D.s. Three- 
fifths (57%) of the specific recommendations for improved teacher 
preparation from college history departments call for practice 
teaching. Actual conduct of lecture courses is the experience that 
is most desired, and very many respondents specify that the practice 
teaching should be supervised by one or more members of the 

7 Dexter Perkins, "We Shall Gladly Teach," 297. 

8 Strothmann and others, The Graduate School Today and Tomorrow, 12. 



166 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

history faculty. 9 The conduct of discussion or "quiz" sections is 
regarded as supplementary to the more desirable experience of 
regular classroom teaching. 

Independent teaching under supervision is also the chief recom- 
mendation made by executives of 134 four-year colleges. The 
college presidents persuasively reason that Ph.D. candidates need 
the experience to find out if they like teaching, to gain a measure 
of confidence, and to develop teaching techniques. They also argue 
that the Ph.D. -training departments themselves need supervised 
student teaching to discover the specific strengths and weaknesses 
of the candidates, both in order to advise them wisely and to be 
able to write reliable letters of recommendation about them. At 
least 30% of the college executives make it clear that practice 
teaching should be a part of Ph.D. training, and about half of these 
explicitly recommend that it be supervised. 

Recent Ph.D.s also call for practice teaching. Half of those who 
recommended more attention to teacher preparation in Ph.D. pro- 
grams think it should be accomplished through supervised teaching. 
And interviews with some 230 members of graduate history facul- 
ties in 1959 showed an overwhelming majority in favor of super- 
vised part-time teaching or teaching assistantships as the best 
means of preparing Ph.D. candidates as teachers. 

Many Ph.D. programs cannot provide teaching experience in 
their undergraduate colleges. Some respondents suggest that they 
might find neighboring colleges willing to do so on an internship 
basis. It may be noted in this connection that the Committee of 
Fifteen in 1955 urgently called upon universities to "recognize the 
need of internships and take steps to establish them." 10 Most Ph.D. 
programs that can provide teacher preparation on their own cam- 
puses will probably prefer this to internship systems, but it should 
be possible to overcome the difficulties in arranging for internships 

9 This reiterates a demand long heard among proponents of teacher preparation 
in Ph.D. programs. See, e.g., the 1950 report by Blegen and Cooper (eds.), The 
Preparation of College Teachers, 127-129. 

10 Strothmann and others, The Graduate School Today and Tomorrow, 22; 
33-34. 



MAJOR CRITICISMS OF PH.D. TRAINING 167 

if they are thought to be desirable. The Council on Medical Edu- 
cation and Hospitals of the American Medical Association some- 
how annually manages to evaluate and approve 1,093 internship 
programs in 867 hospitals with positions for 12,325 interns. 11 

Second only to the demand for practice teaching among propo- 
nents of teacher preparation is the recommendation that Ph.D. 
candidates be offered formal or informal instruction in college 
teaching. Two-fifths (43%) of the specific recommendations of 
teacher preparation from the college departments call specifically 
for this; the recommendation is made by 63 departments. 

What this instruction should include is a matter of disagree- 
ment. Some proponents believe with a California state college 
respondent that it ought to train Ph.D. candidates "to construct a 
curriculum, a course, a lecture, a reading list or syllabus, and a 
test, — also how to order intelligently for a library." Others say 
with Dexter Perkins that there are elementary things that can be 
taught candidates about classroom teaching: "To speak slowly, and 
so that you can be heard; to make the big facts stand out from the 
subordinate ones . . . ; to avoid ponderosity and flippancy alike; 
to talk, not to read; to present a subject as a related whole." 12 
Still others suggest that Ph.D. candidates should be introduced 
to the history and conflicting philosophies of higher education, 
others that they should study the values, standards, and accepted 
ethics of the profession. 13 Many supporters of an orientation course 
would have it touch on all these matters. Realizing that it would 
take many months to present so much in a lecture course, some 
respondents would make the course a reading and discussion pro- 

11 Irwin (ed.), American Universities and Colleges, 8th ed., 112. These figures 
are averages for the years 1957-1959. For literature on teaching internships see 
Eells (ed.), College Teachers and College Teaching, 59. 

^Perkins, "We Shall Gladly Teach," 297. For literature on college teaching 
methods see Eells (ed.), College Teachers and College Teaching, 169-219. 

13 It may be noted in passing that every Ph.D. candidate might profitably be 
required to read and ponder the statement of ethics drafted by the American 
Association of University Professors in 1937 and reprinted in Wilson, The Aca- 
demic Man, 231-23 5. 



DC' 



168 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

gram. Several suggest that it should be an informal, noncredit 
colloquium lasting only about half a semester. 

This idea of a formal or informal course on college teaching finds 
numerous and diverse supporters. Two-fifths of the 1958 Ph.D.s 
state that such a course should be required of all Ph.D.s in history, 
and it may surprise many readers that one-fifth of them report 
having had "a course in problems of college teaching." Members 
of graduate faculties who were interviewed in 1959 were divided 
on the desirability of a required course on teaching. Those who 
opposed it were numerous in most of the departments that were 
visited, and they were usually very rigorous in their opposition. 
But many members of the graduate faculties — about one-third of 
them — agree that Ph.D. candidates should be required to take a 
course on college teaching, "taught by the history department and 
lasting no more than one semester and perhaps less." 

If such a course is to be offered in Ph.D. programs, careful at- 
tention to its content and conduct is needed, of course. This is 
underscored by the variety of sentiments toward such courses 
among those 32 Ph.D.s of 1958 who report having taken them. 
Almost one-third of them describe the course as "valuable" or "very 
valuable." Almost one-third more say it was "not very valuable" 
or that they would "eliminate it from Ph.D. program." And some- 
what more than one-third say that the course was "not as valuable 
as part-time teaching." One thing is clear: whether by supervised 
teaching, through a course, or through a combination of both, 
Ph.D. -training departments need to give most serious considera- 
tion to the responsibility that goes with their near-monopoly over 
the supply of teachers of history in American higher education. 



BREADTH AND SPECIALIZATION 

Critics of both the teaching and the writing of new Ph.D.s in 
history have agreed in the past — and still agree — that they demon- 
strate insufficient breadth of learning, notwithstanding the im- 
pressively broad field requirements that were reviewed in Chapter 
7. From a study of 1945 comes the lament of a college president: 



MAJOR CRITICISMS OF PH.D. TRAINING 169 

e \ . . we ask a man with a Ph.D. in history if he will take a class 
in American history since 1850 and he will hope to be excused since 
his advanced work made him a specialist in 'the Constitution'." 14 
Ten years later a historian member of the Committee of Fifteen 
complains: "We don't turn out historians any more; or even 
American historians; and sometimes not even American diplomatic 
historians." 15 Something is radically wrong, Jacques Barzun has 
written, "in a 'philosophy' which says that the college student 
should receive a general and liberal education, and which makes its 
teachers a living refutation of that ideal." 16 

While one-sixth of the recent history Ph.D.s wish their Ph.D. 
programs had provided more work in their specialized fields of 
history, complaints against overspecialization are heard every- 
where. The third most common criticism of their graduate schools 
by graduate students in history in 1958-1959 was that they de- 
manded overspecialization (see Table 8-1). A large majority of 
recent Ph.D.s are satisfied with the breadth of their doctoral pro- 
grams, but the demand for broader training in history and related 
disciplines is the second most numerous criticism encountered 
among their suggestions. It is raised by almost one-fourth (23 % ) of 
the Ph.D.s of 1958. Among the comments of presidents and de- 
partmental chairmen in the colleges the cry for greater breadth is 
second in intensity and frequency only to the demand for teacher 
preparation. 

"How in the world," Barnaby Keeney has asked, "is a student 
who has concerned himself for a year or two with a barren, worth- 
less, and unstimulating subject going to bring inspiration and in- 
terest into his classes?" 17 The college respondents call for broader 
programs of study as well as for less narrow dissertations. All in all, 
29% of the recommendations received from departments in all 
types of colleges would broaden doctoral training. Many college 
respondents would like all Ph.D. candidates in history to study in 

14 Quoted by Hollis, Toward Improving Ph.D. Programs, 132. 
10 Strothmann and others, The Graduate School Today and Tomorrow, 23. 
19 Barzun, The House of Intellect, 118. 

17 Barnaby C. Keeney, "A Dead Horse Flogged Again," Speculum, XXX (Octo- 
ber, 1955), 607. 



170 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

at least one related discipline. Graduate faculty members for the 
most part agree that one outside field is desirable. But the number 
of graduate faculty members favoring the requirement of "as 
much or more breadth in history as now" is almost exactly the 
same as the number favoring "fewer fields of history or heavier 
concentration than now in the major field." 

To the colleges greater breadth in doctoral programs means better 
teachers. So far as the colleges are concerned, therefore, the recom- 
mendation for more deliberate teacher training and the recom- 
mendation for greater breadth add up to only one demand, a 
demand for better teachers of history. Looked at this way, three- 
fourths (74%) of all recommendations from the 376 four-year 
colleges say "prepare Ph.D. candidates more successfully for college 
teaching." The recommendations from the 126 selected four-year 
colleges provide even more impressive evidence of this: five-sixths 
(85%) of those making recommendations call either for more 
deliberate teacher training or for greater breadth. 

But Ph.D. programs that provide for greater breadth will heed 
more than the recommendations of the colleges, and they will im- 
prove more than teacher training. As scholars no less than as 
teachers, historians need to "interpret the past broadly, in the 
spirit of a man to whom nothing human is alien." 18 The strongest 
reminders of the need for greater breadth in historical training 
come not only from teachers in the colleges but also from research 
scholars in related fields. Thus an American political scientist ob- 
served in 1958 that: "History, the political scientist's 'laboratory/ 
cannot be fully exploited because its guardians, the historians, have 
been interested mainly in demonstrating the uniqueness of histori- 
cal events instead of developing generalizations." 19 Criticism of 
overspecialized training comes also from editors who daily read 
manuscripts produced by Ph.D.s in history. From one of them 
comes the opinion that the "greatest need" in doctoral training is 

18 Dexter Perkins, "We Shall Gladly Teach," 309. 

"Henry L. Mason, Toynbee's Approach to World Politics, vol. V in Tulane 
Studies in Political Science (New Orleans, 195 8), 101. 



MAJOR CRITICISMS OF PH.D. TRAINING 171 

to help Ph.D. candidates "relate their specific research topics to 
matters of broader historical significance." 



TRAINING FOR RESEARCH SCHOLARSHIP 

Historians on graduate faculties made many helpful comments 
about training in research and writing when the author of this 
study interviewed them in the spring of 1959. These comments 
harmonize so perfectly with what we learned about these matters 
from the editors of six historical journals and four university 
presses that only the editorial opinions need be summarized here 
(see Appendix K) . 

The editors' comments suggest that the scholarly writings of 
new Ph.D.s usually reflect sound reasoning and adequate use of 
critical research method. They also show a proper balance of bold- 
ness and caution in reconstructing historical developments from 
limited or controversial material. But a notable number of disserta- 
tions fail to reflect adequate acquaintance with older or more 
recent literature on the subject treated. The research contributions 
of new Ph.D.s reveal too little breadth. Little knowledge of history 
outside the subject area, little awareness of the philosophies of 
history, lack of familiarity with other disciplines in the humanities 
and social sciences, and failure to relate the specific topic to matters 
of broader historical significance — these are faults that all or most 
of the editors notice in the manuscripts of new Ph.D.s. 

Fairly often the prose submitted for publication by new Ph.D.s is 
not as clear and grammatical as it should be. More typically the 
prose of new Ph.D.s is competently written, but, as one editor com- 
ments, it is "seldom lively; it does not delight one." Many manu- 
scripts could be "better organized and more vigorous and succinct" 
(to use the words of one of the press editors). Historical writing 
often is "over-long, diffuse, lacking a clear theme or argument." 
Two journal editors report the acceptance for publication of only 
1 of 10 manuscripts submitted in the period 1956-1958, and this 



172 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

limited acceptance was dictated by more than space limitation. 
One editor writes that, "some papers are submitted to me that are 
totally unfit for publication." In the opinion of 4 of the 10 editors 
the graduate schools are "overly encouraging" publication by their 
Ph.D. graduates, and only 1 says publication is being "insuffi- 
ciently" encouraged. 

More than the methods of training doctoral candidates is involved 
in the weaknesses of historical writing. The editors of historical 
magazines a generation ago were already "dubious about the quality 
of pieces of research offered for publication," and more than one 
of them believed that "the emphasis on 'production' for promotion" 
probably stimulated the preparation of "too many unimportant 
and mediocre research works." 20 One of the press directors sug- 
gested the outlines of another explanation when he wrote the 
following in the fall of 1958: "The introduction of 'scientific' 
techniques has deluded scholars into teaching their students that 
there is no art to historical writing." More recently Allan Nevins 
has also cited "the sweeping transfer of history into scientific 
channels" to explain why historical writing since the nineteenth 
century has become "more original, but more confusing; more 
expert, but grayer and grimmer." 21 

In the eighteenth century, when much less history was published 
than now, one-fourth of the books in private libraries in France 
were histories. 22 Can history in America today hope for so large a 
measure of acceptance? A rediscovery of literary art and a re- 
newal of the capacity for generalization can make history a more 
vital cultural force than it has been in this century; the admonitions 
of the last decade allow one to hope that both are underway. The 
graduate schools can play a decisive role in this development by 
preserving scholarly values while training students to write prose 

20 Jernegan, "Productivity of Doctors of Philosophy in History," 14. 

21 Allan Nevins, "Not Capulets, Not Montagues," American Historical Review, 
LXV (January, 1960), 257. 

22 H. Butterfield, "The History of the Writing of History," in Comite Inter- 
national des Sciences Historiques, XI Congres International des Sciences Histo- 
riques, Rapports, 5 vols. (Goteborg, Stockholm, Uppsala, 1960), I, 27. 



MAJOR CRITICISMS OF PH.D. TRAINING 173 

that is distinguished for its clarity, vigor, and grace of expression 
no less than for its relevance to the broad and vital concerns of a 
busy people. 

Clearly the rate of publication is less important than its quality. 
It is well to examine, nevertheless, the complaint that graduate 
schools are overly encouraging publication. Jernegan estimated in 
1927 that "less than twenty-five per cent of the doctors of philoso- 
phy in history are consistent producers," but Hesseltine and Kaplan 
stated that more than half the new history Ph.D.s of 1926-193 5 
by 1936 "had publications to their credit and gave promise of con- 
tinued productivity." 23 Today fewer graduate schools require the 
publication of doctoral dissertations, and by 1959 only one-fifth 
of the history dissertations of 1947-1948 had been published. Only 
one-third (34%) of the history Ph.D.s of 1947-1948 had pub- 
lished one or more titles by 1959; only one-fifth (19%) had 
published beyond the dissertation. 24 Thus, while more historians 
are publishing than in the past, the percentage of historians who 
publish seems to have declined since the 1930s. 

A second step in deciding whether young historians now publish 
too much is to compare their output with that of Ph.D.s in other 
disciplines. Berelson has done this for the Ph.D.s of 1947-1948, 
and his study shows that history, with 34% of its Ph.D.s publish- 
ing one title or more, is much the least productive — by titles — of 
nine disciplines (e.g., chemistry, 89%; philosophy, 63%; English, 
61%). This situation undoubtedly helps to explain why only one- 
fifth of graduate faculty members (19%) as well as of recent 
Ph.D.s in history (20%) view the present state of their discipline 
as a whole as "very satisfactory," whereas three-fifths of the physi- 
cists and almost half the chemists think of their disciplines with 
that degree of confidence. 25 Production comparisons between his- 
tory Ph.D.s and chemistry Ph.D.s are not revealing, because 96% 
of the publications of the historians are single-author works, while 

^Jernegan, "The Productivity of Doctors of Philosophy in History," 1-2; 
Hesseltine and Kaplan, "Doctors of Philosophy in History," 798-799. 
24 Berelson, Graduate Education, 55, 177. 
26 Ibid., 55,212. 



174 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

only 17% of the publications of the chemists are. Historical pub- 
lications are also longer than those in the sciences. Although the 
writing of history commonly requires more research than do studies 
in English and philosophy, scholarly publication in these disciplines 
is approximately comparable, for as in history it usually involves 
single-author projects. At a time when three-fifths of the Ph.D.s 
in English, almost two-thirds of those in philosophy, and only one- 
third of those in history are publishing, it seems unreasonable 
to conclude that too many history Ph.D.s are writing for publica- 
tion. 

It is possible, however, that some Ph.D.s in history are prema- 
turely submitting their contributions to managing editors of 
journals and presses. In the fall of 1959 no less than 17% of the 
Ph.D.s of 1958 (16.9% of those from the seven top-prestige pro- 
grams) reported having had one book or more accepted for publi- 
cation since the award of the Ph.D.; and more than one-third 
(36%) of the responding Ph.D.s of 1958 reported having at 
least one article accepted for publication. But almost one-fourth 
(22%; 26% from the seven top-prestige programs) reported 
having one article manuscript or more than one rejected, and at 
least one-sixth (16%) reported having had a book manuscript 
rejected. Some of those who are unready would develop their re- 
search science and their literary art if postdoctoral study in history 
— rare as compared with practice in other disciplines — were ex- 
panded. Both the quality and quantity of the publications of young 
Ph.D.s in history would undoubtedly be improved if more post- 
doctoral grants were available to enable them to rethink and 
rewrite the results of their doctoral research or to begin new studies 
arising from it. 26 

Professional historical associations also can and do foster scholarly 
excellence in graduate study. Prizes of the American Historical 
Association (AHA), the Pacific Coast Branch of the AHA, the 

28 On postdoctoral study see ibid., 190-196. If ignorance of available funds 
partly explains why historians do not get more postdoctoral grants, it can still be 
substantially dispelled by consulting Louise Carroll Wade, "Assistance Available 
for Post-Doctoral Historical Research and Publication," American Historical 
Review t LXU (April, 1957), 570-593. 



MAJOR CRITICISMS OF PH.D. TRAINING 175 

Mississippi Valley Historical Association, and the Southern His- 
torical Association frequently go to recent Ph.D.s for dissertations 
or for books that are begun as dissertations. One prize-winning 
book in recent years was actually written as a master's thesis. 
Sometimes, while still Ph.D. candidates, young historians are in- 
vited to appear on the convention programs of the associations. 
Articles by Ph.D. candidates — often developed as seminar papers 
— appear from time to time in The Historian, Journal of Modem 
History, American Slavic and East European Review, 26 * Journal of 
Central European Affairs, Journal of Southern History, Pacific 
Historical Reviexv, Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, Missis- 
sippi Valley Historical Revietv, state and other historical journals, 
and even in the American Historical Review. The European His- 
tory Section of the Southern Historical Association in 1960 in- 
augurated an annual prize for the best seminar paper in European 
history by a graduate student in a Southern university. 

More steps of this kind might be taken to stimulate excellence 
in research and writing among graduate students. It has been sug- 
gested, for example, that a special annual program in which many 
advanced Ph.D. candidates would present very short papers (ten 
minutes each) might be scheduled as part of the annual meeting 
of the AHA. Incidentally, this would allow would-be employers to 
see and hear at least some of the young talent in the nation in 
professional action. In more scholarly terms, this could influence 
Ph.D. training in a desirable way by emphasizing the need for 
Ph.D. candidates to think through their dissertation research and 
succinctly state their major contributions, to present their conclu- 
sions stripped of all but the most essential detail. 

In these and other ways, perhaps more than the present 2 out 
of 5 Ph.D.s in history can be brought to find a publisher for part 
or all of their dissertations. With no more than 40% now doing so 
it is impossible to conclude that the Ph.D. programs are doing a 
job of educating historians that should cause complacency. Yet 
it would be deplorable if any reforms of graduate education should 
add to the length of time currently required for the overall Ph.D. 

26a Published in 1961 and after under the title Slavic Review. 



176 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

program. On the contrary, ways need to be found to improve 
teacher preparation, to keep field requirements broad, and to im- 
prove training for research and writing while simultaneously re- 
ducing the time commonly required for the Ph.D. in history. 

PROTRACTED PH.D. STUDY 

There is abundant opinion and some evidence that Benjamin 
"Wright's "tentative conclusion" of 1957 is valid: that "the length- 
ening of the process has made the doctorate somewhat easier for 
those whom we call capable routineers, while discouraging a good 
many young people who would be much more stimulating teach- 
ers." 27 Berelson has shown quite clearly that members of graduate 
faculties who took a shorter time to complete the Ph.D. are more 
productive as scholars than those who took longer. To Berelson 
this does not mean that protracted doctoral programs burn out 
scholarly interests; he believes it simply means that "the better 
people tend to finish sooner and the better people are more produc- 
tive." 28 The opinion of experienced sponsors of Ph.D. candidates 
in history coincides closely with this judgment. 

In 1861, when Yale granted its first Ph.D., the degree was based 
upon 2 years of study. 29 How long should doctoral studies last 
today? It is a rare member of a graduate faculty in history who 
believes 3 academic years — or even 3 calendar years — is a realistic 
estimate of the time required for most students, even if they can 
devote full time to their studies. 30 But there is widespread agree- 

27 Benjamin F. "Wright, "The Ph.D. Stretch-Out and the Scholar-Teacher," in 
Arthur E. Traxler (ed.), Vital Issues in Education (Washington, 1957), 144. 

28 Berelson, Graduate Education, 166. 

29 Keniston, Graduate Study and Research in the Arts and Sciences at the Uni- 
versity of Pennsylvania, 1 3 . 

30 The report of the four graduate deans in 1957 argued that three years of 
residence should be sufficient, and briefly suggested ways in which training 
might be completed in that period. This report by J. Barzun and others appears 
in the Association of Graduate Schools, Association of American Universities, 
Journal of Proceedings and Addresses, 58th Annual Conference. See also Keniston, 
Graduate Study and Research in the Arts and Sciences at the University of 
Pennsylvania, 3 1 . 



MAJOR CRITICISMS OF PH.D. TRAINING 



177 



ment among historians on graduate faculties that 4 years of full- 
time study — including the master's training if it is taken — should 
be sufficient for Ph.D. candidates who are capable of earning the 
degree unless exceptional problems are involved (e.g., learning a 
language not commonly taught in the colleges). 

In actuality, however, Ph.D. candidates in history rarely com- 
plete the degree within 4 years after beginning graduate study. 
Only 8% of the history Ph.D.s of 1958 were awarded the degree 
within 4 years after beginning graduate study in history; 71% 
required 7 years or more (see Table 8-5). Only one- fourth of the 



Table 8-5 

Time Lapse between Start of Graduate Study and Award 
of Degree to 182 Ph.D.s in History of 1958 



Award of degree within- 



Cumulative 
No. of Ph.D.s 



Cumulative 
% of total 



3 years 

4 years 

5 years 

6 years 

7 years 

8 years 

9 years 

10 years 

11 years or more 



4 

15 

31 

53 

78 

97 

112 

134 

182 



2 
8 
17 
29 
43 
53 
62 
74 
100 



Ph.D.s were under 30 when the degree was awarded; 35% were 
36 or older (see Table 8-6) . The Ph.D.s of 1958 who started grad- 
uate study young tended to take shorter periods to earn the degree; 
those who started later took longer. Ph.D.s in the West and Mid- 
west finished considerably faster than those in the East and South. 
Ph.D.s from the South were notably older than those from other 
regions (almost half — 48% — were 36 or more) and Ph.D.s from 
the Midwest were notably younger (27% were 36 or more). 

Separate studies confirm the fact that only a minority of Ph.D.s 
in history obtain the degree in less than 6 or 7 years. These studies 



178 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



Table 8-6 
Ages of 181 Ph.D.s of 1958 upon Award of the Degree 



Age 



Cumulative 
No. of Ph.D.s 



Cumulative 
% of Ph.D.s 



25 or less . 
27 or less . 
29 or less . 
31 or less. 
33 or less . 
35 or less. 
37 or less . 

39 or less . 

40 or more 



2 

23 

44 

72 

96 

117 

139 

150 

31 



1 

13 
24 
40 
53 
65 
77 
83 
17 



also show that the Ph.D. in history commonly is more protracted 
than doctorates in most other disciplines. Sibley showed in 1948 
that the time required in history from bachelor's to Ph.D. was 7.8 
years and that only political science in a group of 11 social and 
natural sciences required more. 31 More than half (54%) of all the 
history Ph.D.s at Columbia, 1940-1956, spent 8 years or more 
getting the degree. The average length of time required for the 
Columbia Ph.D.s in history, 9.5 years, was the longest for all but 
3 of 13 disciplines; and the average time required to achieve a 
Harvard Ph.D. (8.1 years for the history Ph.D.s of 1954) is almost 
as protracted as for Columbia. 32 

But it is a rare Ph.D. faculty that can criticize the protracted 
Ph.D.s of Columbia and Harvard without illustrating the tendency 
to "reform some other guy" instead of tackling one's own prob- 
lems. Thus a study of 143 recent Ph.D.s in history from universi- 
ties in the South shows a mean time lapse of 9.7 years from the 
beginning of graduate study to award of the doctorate (the 
median was 8.0). This study shows that only in foreign languages 

81 Sibley, The Recruitment, Selection, and Training of Social Scientists, 87. 
32 Rosenhaupt, Graduate Students: Experience at Columbia University, 1940- 
1956,73,79, 124. 



MAJOR CRITICISMS OF PH.D. TRAINING 179 

and English does the Ph.D. take longer. (The time reported in 
economics, political science, and sociology averages from 6 to 18 
months less than in history.) 33 The mean time lapse from bachelor's 
degree to Ph.D. for 95 history Ph.D.s of 1957 in Berelson's sample 
was 10.1 years. 34 This is very much in harmony with the data 
reported above, for the mean time lapse from bachelor's to Ph.D. 
is 18 to 24 months more than the lapse from start of graduate 
study to Ph.D. 

In the decisive opinion of graduate faculties in history, Ph.D. 
programs are overly protracted, and just as decisively they believe 
the cause to be part-time or full-time work by graduate students, 
made necessary by inadequate fellowship aid. Chapter 3 has already 
demonstrated that great numbers of history Ph.D. candidates do 
engage in part-time or full-time work between the beginning of 
graduate study and award of the Ph.D. It also suggested that part- 
time work while in residence does not cause serious delays in 
progress toward the Ph.D. Thus, one-third (33%) of the 57 
Ph.D.s of 1958 who devoted full time to studies while in graduate 
school completed the degree within 6 years, but so did 29% of the 
entire sample of 182. Three-fourths (75%) of the whole sample 
were thirty or more upon award of the Ph.D., and so were three- 
fourths (75%) of the Ph.D.s who devoted full time to study 
while in residence. Part-time work in graduate school somewhat 
delays the Ph.D. candidates who engage in it, but the main prob- 
lem lies elsewhere. 

A comparison of time actually spent in residence with the total 
time from start of graduate study to Ph.D. strengthens the argu- 
ment that the main problem of candidates is lack of funds. Two- 
fifths (42%) of the 1958 Ph.D.s completed their residence in 
graduate school in 3 years or less and three-fourths (73%) com- 
pleted their residence within 4 years (cf. Table 8-5). For 143 
recent Ph.D.s in history in the South the mean length of time in 
graduate study in all institutions was exactly 4 calendar years 

35 Prepublication data made available by the Southern Regional Education Board: 
34 Bernard Berelson generously provided a separate IBM tabulation for the 
history group in his sample of recent (1957) Ph.D.s. 



180 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

(median, 3.8); somewhat longer averages are reported in most 
other disciplines, including the natural sciences. 35 Berelson's respon- 
dents in the social sciences estimated that the Ph.D. required 3.7 
years (median) of actual work — as nearly as they could translate 
protracted activity into equivalent full-time work. Berelson reports 
that it takes the same length of time "in the top places and the 
others." 36 

Obviously programs of 8, 9, or 10 years (and sometimes more) 
usually are not caused by time in residence but by delays in com- 
pleting dissertations after residence is completed and while candi- 
dates hold full-time jobs. Why do candidates plunge (or sink) into 
full-time work before completing dissertations? The cause which 
has been pointed out and which seems obvious is the financial 
need of Ph.D. candidates. 

But it is possible that a different kind of financial problem than 
the need for fellowships is involved. Rosenhaupt has noted that 
Columbia candidates in fields that offered high post-Ph.D. salaries 
finished the degree rapidly. 37 In a report released in 1960 the 
National Opinion Research Center points to low post-Ph.D. sala- 
ries and reluctance to go from a graduate school to a college teach- 
ing position as the major reasons why Ph.D. candidates in the 
humanities have such protracted Ph.D. programs. There is insuf- 
ficient incentive to finish in three to four years. 38 

If, indeed, the Ph.D. "stretch-out" in history is caused in part 
by insufficient financial reward for completing the degree, the 
graduate schools are left with four basic devices to speed the train- 
ing process. One way is to obtain more fellowship funds. The 
second is closely related to the first: graduate faculties can recruit 
better students. The need for both of these measures has been 
reviewed in Chapter 3. A third way is to encourage the students 

58 Data provided by the Southern Regional Education Board. 

** Berelson, Graduate Education, 1 59-1 60. 

37 Rosenhaupt, Graduate Students: Experience at Columbia University, 1940- 
1956,75. 

98 Davis and others, "The Financial Situation of American Arts and Science 
Graduate Students," 261. 



MAJOR CRITICISMS OF PH.D. TRAINING 181 

to do all their graduate work in a single institution. Changing 
graduate schools after a year or so of study is a stimulating and 
broadening experience, but it contributes to the Ph.D. stretch- 
out. 39 A fourth way is to tighten the training process. 

Tighter training is the one way to shorten programs that is 
directly and immediately open to all graduate faculties in history. 
One may hope that tighter training will attract larger numbers of 
superior students; one may also hope that it might convince the 
sources of fellowship aid that more funds should be entrusted to 
history faculties. However this may be, these moves might well be 
tried, for they are desirable in their own right. 

What, then, can be tightened? Recent Ph.D.s in history and 
graduate faculty members generally are in agreement about the 
steps that might be taken. The Ph.D.s of 1958 recommend them 
in this order: 

1. Provide better orientation and guidance of graduate students, 
especially in work on the dissertation 

2. Set deadlines for various stages of progress 

3. Put less emphasis on formal courses, especially lecture courses 

4. Restrict the dissertation somewhat in scope of topic, amount 
of research expected, or length 

5. Raise general standards for admission; require fulfillment of 
the language requirement for admission 

6. Encourage Ph.D. candidates to bypass the master's degree; 
waive the requirement of a master's thesis 

7. Eliminate the final oral examination for the Ph.D. 

8. Relax or eliminate the foreign language requirement 

9. Reduce the number or size of the fields that are covered on 
the general examination for the Ph.D. 

Large numbers of historians on graduate faculties during inter- 
views in 1959 recommended points 1 to 5. A good many of the 
members of graduate faculties also favored points 6 to 9, though 
these are more controversial. Points 5 to 7 and point 9 have already 

39 Only about half the social science Ph.D.s covered in the Sibley report of 
1948 had done all their graduate work in a single institution. Sibley, The Re- 
cruitment, Selection, and Training of Social Scientists, 60. 



182 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



been discussed in other contexts in this study (see Chapters 3, 5, 
7). It seems especially relevant to this discussion to comment on 
points 1 to 4, 8, and 9. 

Graduate students support the demand of recent Ph.D.s for 
better faculty guidance to history graduate students. The reports 
of some 300 history students in 25 universities indicate that they 
are somewhat less satisfied with advice from their professors than 
are students in other disciplines. Table 8-7 shows the frequency 



Table 8-7 

Comparison of Faculty Guidance Received by Graduate 

Students in History and Other Disciplines 

(Sample of 2,764 Students), 1958-1959 



Type of advice 



% of students advised by at least 
one faculty member 



History students Total sample 



Definitely strive for the Ph.D 

Apply for a fellowship or scholarship 

You have a flair for research 

You were best student in a class 

You have a flair for teaching 

You are one of the best students in the 
department 

You are taking too long to get the degree 

Consider transferring to another univer- 
sity 

Modify a few personality traits 

You should not plan on Ph.D 

Research would not be best for you 

Teaching would not be best for you 

You might do better in a different depart- 
ment 




47 
41 
32 
27 
26 

23 
9 

4 
8 
3 

2 
2 



source: Statistics provided by the National Opinion Research Center. 

with which they report receiving advice of various types. The 
amount of guidance students receive varies greatly from one Ph.D. 
program to another, largely depending upon the student-teacher 



MAJOR CRITICISMS OF PH.D. TRAINING 183 

ratio. Thus one-fourth of all the Ph.D.s of 1958 state that too 
many students beyond the master's degree were in residence in their 
universities for adequate faculty attention, and almost half (46%) 
of the group from the seven top-prestige programs register this 
complaint (three -fourths — 74% — of the 19 Ph.D.s from one of 
the seven). 

Improved guidance at initial registration is needed in many 
departments. In most of them the new student confers with only 
one faculty member. With about equal frequency this is: (1) the 
departmental chairman; (2) the department's graduate adviser; 
or (3) any appropriate faculty member. In 22% of the Ph.D.- 
training departments the student confers with more than one 
faculty member. An informal discussion of previous training and 
the development of a program for the first year of graduate study 
between the new student and two or three faculty members can be 
especially helpful at this stage — to students and faculty members 
alike. If a master's thesis is to be written, time can be saved by the 
appointment on the spot of a faculty sponsor or a committee to 
spur and aid the student in the choice of a subject. 

A second stage at which better guidance is very much needed 
comes at the end of the first year of graduate study. Whether or 
not the student is seeking the master's degree, he should then be 
definitely encouraged to go on to the Ph.D. — or just as vigorously 
discouraged. The student who seems no better than a risky pros- 
pect for the doctorate at the end of one year of graduate study 
is likely to be in the end no better than a risky prospect. And he 
will not be made much better than risky if he is kept in the Ph.D. 
program for eight years or more. 

Guidance toward the end of the Ph.D. program can also be 
improved. Students need faculty help in selecting dissertation 
topics. Much time can be saved if topics can be selected early and 
developed in seminars and in the master's thesis, if one is written. 
Students are sometimes delayed because chapters of dissertations 
are read slowly, or by changes in faculty personnel, or by disagree- 
ments among faculty members who read their dissertations. In one 
department visited in this study it is not uncommon for the 



184 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

student to wait two months or more after taking the general writ- 
ten examination before being told whether he has passed or failed. 
While this does not happen in most Ph.D. programs, it is difficult 
to justify its happening at all. 

Guidance alone will not drastically shorten the time required 
for the Ph.D., and some faculty members are prepared to try more 
radical reforms. Members of graduate faculties almost unanimously 
agree that Ph.D. programs are protracted by the requirement of 
reading knowledge in foreign languages. A small minority are 
willing to waive the requirement completely. Large numbers are 
in favor of requiring Ph.D. candidates to stand examination in 
only one language on the condition that greater mastery be dem- 
onstrated than is now commonly required by language examina- 
tions. But an almost exactly equal number would prefer to 
continue requiring examination in two languages. On the other 
hand, all but a small minority of the graduate faculty members 
favor setting a deadline for the passing of one foreign language 
examination by new graduate students. A good many would re- 
quire this before the initial registration for graduate courses in 
history; the majority would demand it before the beginning of a 
second year of graduate study. 

The graduate faculty members agree almost without dissent 
that the general examination causes delays in Ph.D. programs. 
None of those interviewed in this study want to make this examina- 
tion less rigorous, but many faculty members would reduce the 
scope or number of fields covered on the examination, and this is 
thought by some to be especially appropriate in the case of candi- 
dates whose specialty requires competence in three or four foreign 
languages. A large majority are in favor of setting a deadline by 
which Ph.D. candidates must take the general examination. And 
there is a widespread conviction that students should prepare for 
the general examination more independently than is usually the 
case, that they should not be required to accumulate large amounts 
of course credit. 

The doctoral dissertation in history has long been the target of 



MAJOR CRITICISMS OF PH.D. TRAINING 185 

criticism. In 1927 J. Franklin Jameson, convinced that "most 
universities make too formidable a job" of it, suggested that the 
student could "learn those arts of continuous research and meth- 
odical construction and composition, which it is of course neces- 
sary for him to learn, quite as well by producing a monograph of 
a hundred pages as by producing one of six or seven hundred." 40 
Admonitions by Jameson and others have not resulted in shorter 
dissertations, and the time invested in Ph.D. dissertations is a large 
element in the arithmetic of prolonged programs. Data provided 
by 1,869 recent Ph.D.s from universities in the South, including 
139 in history, show that the average (mean and median) time 
lapse between approval of topics and submission of complete dis- 
sertations is longer in history than in any of 15 disciplines. The 
mean time lapse in history of 2.8 years may be compared with 2.1 
in political science, and 1.9 in the physical sciences. 41 

A few historians on graduate faculties today are ready to settle 
for dissertations of 100 to 150 pages in length. But most agree that 
300 pages is the maximum desirable length, and most believe that 
one calendar year of full-time work should be sufficient for disser- 
tation research and writing. In considering this as well as other 
proposals for tightening doctoral training the following comment 
by Hayward Keniston is worth the serious attention of graduate 
faculties in history: "In a word, we must give up the idea that the 
graduate student should emerge from his studies a fully formed 
scholar; the most that we can hope is that he has gained a fairly 
broad vision of his field, its problems and limitations, and that he 
has learned how to carry on independent research, and, above all, 
that he enters on his career with undiminished zest in the great 
adventure of learning." 42 

Quoted by Jernegan, "Productivity of Doctors of Philosophy in History," 
17-1 8n. 

41 Data provided by the Southern Regional Education Board. 

42 Keniston, Graduate Study and Research in the Arts and Sciences at the 
University of Pennsylvania, 32. 



186 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

SUMMARY 

Criticism is the subject and the substance of this chapter. As a 
result, a word of caution and qualification is in order, for as Merle 
Curti has noted, "American and European scholars alike" have 
often been "misled by the tendency of American scholars to be 
self-critical." 43 Solid accomplishments should not be lost from 
sight as the hopes of greater accomplishments are passed in review. 
In the opinion of many graduate faculty members in American 
universities in 1959, graduate study in this country is "better" 
than it was in the 1930s, and better than its counterpart in France, 
West Germany, and the U.S.S.R. 44 

The criticisms solicited in this study serve most of all to em- 
phasize the supreme importance of attracting superior students 
to graduate study in history. If the students are first-rate, the 
Ph.D. graduates can be capable teachers of breadth, effective con- 
tributors to scholarly publications, and young enough upon the 
award of the Ph.D. to cause less concern than there is now about 
protracted doctoral programs. But there is widespread agreement 
that repairs are overdue in the training system if Ph.D.s in history 
are to be educated more efficiently as teachers and as scholars. The 
repairs are recommended whether or not larger numbers of Ph.D.s 
are to be trained. 

Foremost among the suggested changes in doctoral training is 
the more deliberate preparation of Ph.D. candidates as teachers. 
History graduate students, recent Ph.D.s, and the colleges that 
provide positions for so many of these all want improved teacher 
training. Many members of graduate faculties concur in this desire, 
and a number of history Ph.D. programs have already made pro- 
vision for better teacher preparation (see Chapter 9). 

Closely related to the demand for more deliberate teacher 
training is the demand — also strongly expressed — for greater 
breadth of training. There is widespread opinion that overspecializa- 

43 Curti (ed.), American Scholarship in the Twentieth Century, 16-17. 

44 Berelson, Graduate Education, 209-210. 



MAJOR CRITICISMS OF PH.D. TRAINING 187 

tion produces both teachers and research scholars ill-equipped to 
meet the broad demands of historical scholarship. The instilling of 
a broader historical approach and more attention to the literary- 
skills are the major recommendations editors have to offer Ph.D. 
programs in history. 

Finally, this chapter shows how protracted Ph.D. programs in 
history have become. It suggests ways in which they might be 
tightened, and Chapter 9 will suggest others. Statistics proving 
that the Ph.D. in history requires an average of eight years to 
achieve should summon up realistic determination and inventive- 
ness on the part of every graduate faculty in the nation in at- 
tempting to reduce the Ph.D. "stretch-out." And determination 
should not be sapped by talk of producing "half-baked" Ph.D.s 
as a result of the tightened program. Half-baked bread is no good, 
but medium-rare steaks are a different matter. It is generally agreed 
that Ph.D. candidates in history have commonly been left too long 
over a slow fire. 45 

a Readers may be interested in comparing this chapter with the mimeographed 
report prepared by G. W. Pierson (August, 1961) on criticisms of Ph.D. training 
at Yale University offered by former graduate students at Yale. 



Chapter 9 

EXPERIMENTS WITH TEACHER 

TRAINING AND TIGHTENED 

PROGRAMS 



The most realistic formula for training Ph.D.s who are first- 
rate scholar-teachers is, in the opinion of many members of graduate 
faculties, one of five parts: (1) get first-rate students; (2) pro- 
vide them with adequate financial support for full-time or nearly 
full-time study; (3) inspire and require them to work very hard; 
(4) make them feel that teaching is important and orient them in 
the qualities of good teaching; and (5) turn them loose after three 
or four years, judging them by the quality of their work more than 
by its quantity and acknowledging that Ph.D. training is a begin- 
ning, not a culmination, of scholarly development. Since better 
salaries for history Ph.D.s are needed if the first-rate students are 
to be attracted to doctoral training, it is believed that they are a 
precondition for the success of this or any other training formula — 
and that what the student can expect to earn at forty or sixty is 
more important than what he is offered upon completing the 
degree. 

Explicit efforts at teacher preparation and deliberate attempts 
to tighten the training program are direct expressions of the last 
three parts of this five-part formula. 

188 



TEACHER TRAINING AND TIGHTENED PROGRAMS 189 



TEACHER PREPARATION 

A great many Ph.D. programs provide graduate students with 
experience as leaders of discussion groups, and some add instruction 
in college teaching. The instruction may be given informally by 
the course director during staff meetings — as at Harvard — or it 
may be put on a more formal basis — as at Wisconsin. Still other 
institutions appoint graduate students to part-time instructorships, 
giving them full control over their classes and, typically, providing 
no faculty supervision and criticism. Since these types of prepara- 
tion are well known, they will not be reviewed here. Instead, a 
number of more experimental attempts to meet the need for teacher 
preparation will be summarized. 

Princeton's program since 1950 has included a seminar on 
"Teaching History at the College Level." It is required of all 
second-year graduate students and lasts the better part of one 
semester. In the first part of the course a faculty member lectures 
on the ways students learn and on the attributes and techniques 
of teaching that encourage or discourage learning. Students then 
prepare outline plans for the conduct of parts of a freshman survey 
course, showing the central aim of each session; they also provide 
illustrative material, questions for discussion, and a fifteen-minute 
test based on assigned reading, and indicate the way a single session 
would be summarized at the beginning of the next session of the 
course. Each student's plan is critically discussed by the whole 
group. Some attention is also given in this course to the role of 
history in relation to other parts of a college curriculum. 

In the "laboratory" part of the course each graduate student 
gives (to the seminar and its director) a fifty-minute lecture of 
the sort that would normally be presented in an undergraduate 
course. Each performance is followed by vigorous criticism of con- 
tent, style, and delivery by students and the director of the course. 
This experience is thought to be especially valuable, for it may be 
the last time in a teaching career when the lecturer is "told what 
is wrong with his teaching with complete, if rather brutal, candor." 



190 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

This experience enables the faculty to write "honest and informed" 
recommendations about the students when they apply for teach- 
ing positions. It is also believed that this course strengthens the 
motivations of the students for teaching and helps develop among 
them a professional approach to their whole graduate program. 1 

The University of Rochester, like Princeton, a decade ago 
searched for a way to provide teacher preparation to graduate stu- 
dents without assigning them to teach undergraduate courses. The 
doctoral candidate who is accepted at Rochester as a "graduate 
associate" manages two or three discussion sections of the survey 
course during his first and second years. During his second year 
he also prepares 10 lectures to be given in undergraduate courses 
of differing sizes and at differing levels. Each lecture is prepared 
in consultation with the instructor in whose course the student will 
give it. The instructor then listens to the lecture and subsequently 
criticizes it. The graduate associates also receive practice — under 
faculty supervision — as advisers to undergraduate majors. The 
Rochester experience illustrates one way in which a Ph.D. program 
can provide a limited amount of supervised teaching of varied types 
to doctoral candidates even if it is unwilling or unable to assign 
them full responsibility for undergraduate classes. 

Duke University's approach to teacher preparation of Ph.D. 
candidates in history combines some of the instructional features 
of the Princeton program with the supervised practice features of 
the Rochester system. Since 1952 a seminar in "The Teaching of 
History in College" has been required of doctoral candidates in 
their last year of required residence. It is conducted by two mem- 
bers of the history faculty with the close collaboration of other 
members of the department. In the first part of the year-long 
seminar each student is assigned to observe the teaching of an 
instructor in an undergraduate course during a period of about 
six class meetings covering a unit of the course and, if possible, 

1 See Gordon A. Craig, "College Teaching: Theory and Practice," Princeton 
Alumni Weekly, LIX (January 30, 1959), 9-12; Craig, "New Needs and Old 
Values," paper presented to the annual convention of the American Historical 
Association, December, 1959. 



TEACHER TRAINING AND TIGHTENED PROGRAMS 191 

ending with a test. During this period the student confers with the 
instructor about his objectives and methods. Each student prepares 
a detailed written report on the goals and methods of instruction 
and testing that he has observed. These reports are then discussed 
in evening meetings of the seminar, held every two weeks in the 
homes of the seminar directors. 

In the second semester each member of the seminar prepares a 
detailed plan of instruction for a unit of three class meetings of 
the course he observed during the fall term. This plan must show 
general objectives, objectives for each class meeting, approaches to 
be used, illustrations to be used, reading assignments, plans for stu- 
dent participation, a twenty-minute test, and a fifty-minute test. 
The student then teaches the class in a three-meeting period, follow- 
ing which he revises his teaching plans, writes a report on his experi- 
ence, and presents this report to the seminar. Besides reviewing 
teaching experiences the seminar members discuss matters of broad 
professional concern on the basis of readings assigned by the pro- 
fessors in charge. These treat such topics as: (1) academic freedom 
and responsibility; (2) the relationship of teaching and research; 
(3) professional societies; (4) administrative and committee work 
of faculty members; (5) ethics and etiquette of the profession; 
(6) getting a job; and (7) responsibilities of faculty members 
toward the library. The Duke program thus moves first fiom obser- 
vation of good teaching to actual teaching and then to considera- 
tion of professional matters. 

Indiana University in 1958-1959 inaugurated a course in "The 
Teaching of College History" somewhat like that at Duke, offering 
it to second- and third-year graduate students. At Indiana as at 
Duke the students prepare outlines of courses and lectures and give 
practice lectures. Plans were being made in 1959-1960 for tape 
recording the conduct of discussion sections and trial lectures, and 
for making five-minute films of parts of each student's lectures. 
In this way the student could actually hear and see his own teach- 
ing and thus identify — with the help of other members of the 
seminar and the instructor — the qualities needing improvement. 
At Indiana as at Duke the course in 1958-1959 involved discussion 



192 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

of the seven matters of professional concern enumerated in the 
above paragraph. 

The program at Tulane University to prepare history students 
for college teaching includes a one-semester seminar, required of all 
doctoral candidates. This is conducted by the chairman of the de- 
partment, who also serves as adviser to graduate students. The 
seminar gives considerable attention to the history of higher educa- 
tion in the United States and to the professional matters discussed 
in the Duke and Indiana seminars. The Tulane program differs 
from the others here reviewed chiefly in that it includes the inde- 
pendent teaching of a section — occasionally two sections — of the 
freshman survey courses for an entire academic year by each 
doctoral candidate. Ideally this is done during the student's third 
year of graduate study, and the seminar on college teaching is 
taken during the first term in which the student is actually teach- 
ing. Each member of the seminar observes the teaching of every 
other member and prepares a written critique on it. Thus at the 
end of the seminar there are 5 to 10 critiques on each student's 
teaching. In a conference with each student-instructor the depart- 
ment chairman reviews the critiques of his work, making sugges- 
tions for the improvement of shortcomings that were noted by the 
student-critics. Meanwhile, each student's major professor also 
observes his classroom performance and offers constructive criti- 
cism. 

Some supervised teaching is also provided in the Intercollegiate 
Program of Graduate Studies operated by the Claremont Graduate 
School, Occidental College, the University of Redlands, and Whit- 
tier College. This program, in fact, "aims primarily at improved 
preparation for college teaching." Believing broad understanding 
of the liberal arts to be the way to good teaching in the colleges, 
this program features interdisciplinary seminars in which three 
professors direct and try to interrelate extensive reading by 6 to 15 
students in their various fields (e.g., history, philosophy, and art). 
Two of these interdisciplinary seminars are normally completed by 
each doctoral candidate. 

Yet another approach to teacher preparation was inaugurated 



TEACHER TRAINING AND TIGHTENED PROGRAMS 193 

at Stanford University in 1959-1960. In this experiment each pro- 
fessor sponsoring Ph.D. candidates undertook to give them a 
course on methods and problems of teaching. Because of the burden 
on professors with many graduate students, the department at the 
end of the year was considering the possibility of having one faculty 
member conduct a unified course on teaching. 

REDUCING THE PH.D. "STRETCH-OUT" 

Many doctoral programs in history have taken steps in recent 
years to make Ph.D. programs less protracted. The change in foreign 
language examinations and the waiving of the final doctoral exam- 
ination in some cases at Harvard have already been cited (see Chap- 
ter 7). Several other Ph.D. programs have made even more com- 
prehensive attempts to reduce the Ph.D. "stretch-out." 

The basic step in some programs is (as it is at Harvard) the care- 
ful scrutiny of applicants for admission to graduate school: thus 
Yale in 1959 admitted 1 of 4 applicants, and Princeton 1 of 6. 
While the obligations of state universities may make it impossible 
for them to turn away such a high proportion of applicants as do 
Princeton, Yale, and other private universities, the University of 
California in 1958-1959 inaugurated a new foreign language re- 
quirement that also has the effect of screening applicants more 
carefully than was earlier the case: each applicant is required to 
pass an examination in one foreign language before he can enroll 
in graduate courses in history. 

The guidance a student is given when he first arrives at a gradu- 
ate school and during his first year of study can do much to prolong 
or shorten his period of study. At Berkeley, as a result of the reforms 
that went into effect in 1958-1959, each entering student is in- 
formed that the department expects students with sound under- 
graduate training and a reading knowledge of two foreign lan- 
guages to complete the general examination for the Ph.D. after 
two years of full-time graduate study. Students who have not 
taken the Ph.D. examination by the beginning of the third year 
of graduate study must petition the department for an extension. 



194 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

The department thus no longer allows the students to set their 
own pace. "They must plan their program to get to the qualifying 
[general] examination in two years or explain why they are delay- 
ing." 2 To enable the students to prepare for the examination by 
the end of the second year of graduate study, field requirements 
were altered. Adequate undergraduate preparation can now satisfy 
the previous requirement of a fourth (minor) field. Examination 
over the major field is separated from examination over two minor 
fields of history, underscoring the subordinate character of the 
latter. In addition, students are encouraged to enroll in two 3 -hour 
reading courses in order to prepare for examination in the whole 
field of the major. These reading courses are directed by a specific- 
ally designated adviser from the major field of study, and the 
contact this affords makes possible more adequate guidance in the 
planning and development of a total Ph.D. program than was 
previously afforded Ph.D. candidates at Berkeley. 

The history department at Stanford University in 1959-1960 
also moved to screen graduate students more systematically than 
it had previously, and to speed their progress toward the Ph.D. 
Students are told that they should pass an examination in one 
foreign language during the first year of graduate study at Stan- 
ford, and in a second language during the second year; that failure 
to pass on schedule will result in suspension of their candidacy for 
the doctorate. After four quarters (or soon after one quarter for 
students who have received the master's degree elsewhere) each 
student is evaluated by a faculty review committee. This com- 
mittee gives in effect a qualifying examination, scrutinizes seminar 
papers, considers the student's plans for Ph.D. study, and generally 
assesses the student's ability and readiness to perform as a doctoral 
candidate. Admission to candidacy for the Ph.D. or termination of 
the student's study at Stanford follows the review of this "wash- 
out" committee. 

Each entering student at Stanford is told that "except in the 

2 Hunter Dupree, "The State University Graduate School and the Deluge," 
paper read at the annual convention of the American Historical Association, 
December, 1959. 



TEACHER TRAINING AND TIGHTENED PROGRAMS 195 

most unusual cases, the Department expects completion of the 
requirements for the doctorate in not more than three academic 
years of residence"; that "at the end of his second year the can- 
didate should take his general examinations and by the end of his 
third year he should have completed his dissertation." To this end 
the department has changed the number of fields required in his- 
tory from six narrow fields to three broader ones (e.g., Europe 
since 1700). It also authorizes the student and his adviser to "de- 
limit a particular area of study" within the secondary fields for 
major consideration during the general examination. A minor in 
another discipline (or in a combination of disciplines) may be 
substituted for one of the secondary history fields. The general 
examination is divided into two parts. A written examination covers 
two secondary fields and, if this is satisfactory, the oral examina- 
tion may be limited to the major field. Finally, the student at 
Stanford is told that the doctoral dissertation — "except in the most 
unusual of cases" — should not be longer than "250 typewritten 
pages" and that the subject should be "sufficiently delimited to 
admit of completion within one year." A committee of three 
faculty members, including one from outside the history depart- 
ment, supervises and approves the dissertation. No final examina- 
tion is required. 

The history faculty at Yale tightened its Ph.D. program in 1958- 
1959. Early screening is an important element in the speed-up. 
In an all-day meeting at the end of the spring semester the faculty 
decides which students are to be allowed to continue into their 
second or third years of study and which are to go beyond the 
master's degree. Students unable to pass an examination in either 
French or German cannot matriculate in history. The passing of 
the second language is urged at entrance, or no later than the be- 
ginning of the second year. Fellowship aid is normally not given 
to those who have not satisfied both language requirements before 
the end of their third term of residence. Another feature of the 
Yale reforms of 1958-1959 is a special provision for independent 
study. Henceforth second-year students will drop one of the four- 
courses they were previously expected to take in order to use the 



196 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

released time for independent study in preparation for the general 
(oral) examination. This is scheduled for the end of the second 
year. By the middle of the third year each student is expected to 
have a doctoral dissertation underway, and a length limitation of 
300 typed pages on the dissertation is enforced. 

Early and systematic faculty screening of graduate students is 
also a feature of attempts to tighten the Ph.D. program in history 
at Tulane University. There a faculty "reception committee" of 
three or four instructors and the department chairman meets each 
new graduate student in an interview lasting about thirty minutes. 
This involves an informal review of the student's previous study, 
an attempt to ascertain his professional objectives and his central 
interests in history, the tentative planning of a full year of courses 
and seminars, and the designation of a faculty committee to advise 
the new student during his first semester in the choice of a topic 
for the master's thesis. At the end of the first and second semesters 
the department chairman receives an evaluation form on all new 
students from each professor with whom they are studying. Thus 
the coordination of faculty evaluations of student performances is 
made possible. Intellectual growth, prospects for attainment of the 
Ph.D., readiness for part-time teaching, and qualification for fel- 
lowship aid are all noted in the evaluation check-sheets. This affords 
a more careful and earlier screening of graduate students than was 
previously practiced. 

The University of Michigan in 1959 sought in different ways to 
accelerate the progress of doctoral candidates. One slight change 
was made in field requirements. Ph.D. candidates will be required 
to offer five fields of history plus one cognate field as before. From 
now on, however, Ph.D. candidates may omit the examination 
over one of these fields. This may be the cognate field or any field 
of history except the field of concentration. Course work satisfies 
the requirement for this field. As another means of reducing the 
Ph.D. stretch-out, Michigan requires that a committee meeting be 
held to discuss each candidate's work when he is about one-third 
of the way through with the dissertation. It is hoped — but no rule 
is adopted to cover this — that each Ph.D. dissertation will be no 



TEACHER TRAINING AND TIGHTENED PROGRAMS 197 

more than 300 pages in type. Michigan has also agreed to waive the 
final examination on the Ph.D. dissertation when it shows excep- 
tional ability. 

One of the suggestions most often made for shortening the period 
of study for the doctorate is to reduce the number of courses — 
especially lecture courses — required of Ph.D. candidates. The his- 
tory department at the University of Texas in 1958 revised its 
Ph.D. program to eliminate the traditional lecture courses taken 
by both graduate and undergraduate students. Henceforth gradu- 
ate students are to take sequences of "seminars" and "research 
seminars." The former, given in the fall, introduce students to a 
field of history, its major themes, problems, conflicting interpre- 
tations, and primary and secondary sources. The "research seminar" 
in the second term involves the student in supervised research and 
writing. A drastic reduction in credit hours was part of the Texas 
reform. A minimum of 36 credit hours for the Ph.D. is now set, 
24 hours in the major area (three limited fields) and 12 in the 
minor area (two limited fields). These reforms look toward "a 
two-year course program for the doctorate." 

A somewhat similar approach to revising the character of gradu- 
ate courses was adopted at Emory University in 1959-1960. In 
three quarters during the academic year students are now moved 
in sequence within each field from lectures about content to em- 
phasis on literature and then to full-time research and writing. 
It is hoped that this will culminate in the completion of a master's 
thesis within one academic year, thus accelerating progress toward 
the Ph.D. degree. 

To some extent both the Texas and Emory approaches to courses 
resemble the approach that has been used for some time at the 
University of Washington (Seattle). There the courses taken by 
graduate students directly point toward field preparation in re- 
stricted areas of history, usually covering periods of twenty-five 
to fifty years. In two hours of formal class meetings each week the 
professor discusses the scholarly problems, varying interpretations, 
and literature of the field. Students are thus guided in wide and 
intensive reading, and since each course carries five hours of credit, 



198 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

only two of which are spent in class each week, there is time for 
independent study. These "field" courses are supplemented by 
research seminars and a course in historiography. The over-all em- 
phasis is, therefore, upon achieving competence in fields rather 
than upon the accumulation of large numbers of hour-credits. 

This is also the aim of graduate courses at Princeton, which 
pioneered in several of the techniques for tightening doctoral 
programs that have been reviewed here. The major tactical moves 
in the Princeton campaign against the Ph.D. stretch-out have 
been: 

1. Careful selection of students, with admission of doctoral 
candidates only 

2. Careful guidance and close screening of first -year students 

3. Elimination of lecture courses for graduate students 

4. Early selection of topics for doctoral dissertations and their 
development in seminars — especially in a "Thesis Writers' Seminar" 
that all students are expected to take during the second semester of 
their second year of graduate study and during their third year 
of graduate study 

5. Restriction of the number and scope of fields to be covered 
on the general examination (three fields; one additional field in 
history and one outside field to be satisfied by "successful com- 
pletion of advanced work") 

6. Reduction of courses during the spring term of the second 
year of graduate study to allow for supervised independent study 
in the major field 

7. Requirement that students take the general examination at 
the end of the second year of graduate study 

8. Limitation of the scope and length of dissertations, which are 
not to exceed 75,000 words (or about 300 typed pages) 

SUMMARY 

All the experiments in teacher preparation that have been re- 
viewed here have one feature and one result in common : they focus 
the thought of both students and faculty on teaching as a central 



TEACHER TRAINING AND TIGHTENED PROGRAMS 199 

concern of doctoral training in history. The doctoral candidate who 
goes through programs like those summarized above can be ex- 
pected to emerge with an awareness of the importance of good 
teaching, familiarity with the various forms it can take and the 
problems it involves, and some actual experience in it. The students 
know more about themselves as a result of the experience; and the 
faculty is better able to be specific about the capacity for teaching 
of the Ph.D. candidates it recommends for academic positions. 

The attempts to tighten Ph.D. programs in history have taken 
many forms. Some have involved a realistic elimination of certain 
requirements; some have been more specific about the timing of 
traditional requirements. All are based upon two guiding assump- 
tions. One is that some quantitative aspects of previous practices 
can be sacrificed without damaging the quality of doctoral train- 
ing; that the central concern of Ph.D. -training faculties should be 
with the student's demonstration of scholarly purpose and growth 
and with the quality of the student's performance. A second 
assumption is that the faculty must itself assume responsibility for 
pacing the doctoral candidate's progress toward the Ph.D. 

Other experiments are being undertaken; those reviewed in this 
chapter are only representative. It is too early to say with certainty 
whether all the features of the experiments noted here will in the 
long run prove to be desirable. It is indicative, however, that the 
Princeton and Rochester faculties are convinced of the importance 
of deliberate teacher preparation after more than a decade of their 
efforts to achieve it. And it is encouraging to learn that the results 
of the increased speed of training are thought to be salutary where 
it has been effected. One year's experience, in the opinion of one 
member of the graduate faculty at the University of California, 
has been sufficient to allay the fear that a "watered-down Ph.D." 
would be the necessary result of acceleration. On the contrary, the 
experience at California suggests that "acceleration is the path to 
higher and more precise standards and a better level of performance 
on the part of the student." 3 

z lbid. 



Chapter 10 
RECOMMENDATIONS 



The Committee on Graduate Education in History has been 
guided by two major convictions in drafting recommendations for 
the profession. First, it believes that graduate education as it has 
developed and is now conducted in the United States needs im- 
provement, not replacement. Second, its recommendations are 
offered not as absolutes but as the product of thought by historians 
who have responsibly sought (after a study of current practice 
and professional opinion through interviews, correspondence, and 
questionnaires) to arrive at decisions about complicated and con- 
troversial matters. 

ATTRACTING AND ADMITTING GRADUATE STUDENTS 

Considerably more Ph.D.s in history will be needed annually 
during the 1960s than have been annually trained in the 1950s. 
Shortages of Ph.D.s in some fields of history do not now exist, but 
shortages in all fields of history will appear by 1964-1965 unless 
special measures such as the following are taken to increase the 
number of serious and capable Ph.D. candidates in the country: 

1. More fellowships and scholarships should be made available 
for first-year graduate study and especially for a year of dissertation 
research and writing. The committee believes that loans are neces- 
sary and helpful but that they should not be viewed as the major 

200 



RECOMMENDATIONS 201 

means of financing graduate study. Fellowships and scholarships 
are more desirable and realistic forms of assistance. In the past, 
prospective history students have been offered fewer and smaller 
stipends than students in other fields, along with prospects of rela- 
tively low post-Ph.D. salaries. Only through increased financial 
support can the profession attract graduate students of outstanding 
ability in sufficient numbers to meet the needs of the next decade. 

2. The American Historical Association should publish and 
circulate a short booklet (of 4 to 20 pages) designed for promising 
undergraduates, discussing the opportunities and procedures of 
graduate study in history. 1 

3. Teachers of history at all levels should make able students 
aware of the possibilities of graduate study in history and careers 
as teachers of history. 

4. A few well-prepared departments that do not now offer 
doctoral training might wish to do so; but the needs of the 1960s 
are not sufficiently acute to warrant the creation of a special doc- 
torate for teachers, inferior to the Ph.D., nor do they make it nec- 
essary for departments with inadequate faculty strength and 
library resources to offer Ph.D. training. Several Ph.D. programs 
in history that rank among the top twenty or thirty in the nation 
have faculty and facilities for educating larger numbers of Ph.D.s 
than they are now producing. 

5. Three conditions should be met by history departments that 
offer Ph.D. training: (a) the department should have faculty 
members in at least three broad fields of history, the majority of 
whom must be experienced teachers whose scholarly research con- 
tributions are recognized by fellow historians in the nation; (b) 
doctoral training being an expensive undertaking, the history 
department should be able to command financial resources for the 
assistance of graduate students, allocation of faculty time, and 
development of faculty members as scholars; and (c) the institu- 
tion should have library resources adequate for training in research 

1 History as a Career: To Undergraduates Choosing a Profession, basically pre- 
pared by Professor Snell, was published in 1961 and copies are available at nominal 
cost from the American Historical Association, Washington 3, D.C. 



202 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

seminars and for preparation for the general examination. Experi- 
ence suggests that institutions that command respect as centers of 
doctoral training have libraries with general collections of several 
hundred thousands of volumes, or outstanding collections in spe- 
cial areas of history, or both. 

6. A more personal evaluation of applicants for admission to 
graduate school is needed. It should be possible to identify some 
students whose abilities may be greater than undergraduate grades 
suggest. It should also be possible to avoid the waste of time and 
money that results when students are admitted who lack the 
qualities required for successful graduate study. More critical 
letters of recommendation about applicants and more frequent in- 
terviews with them can assist in a more personal evaluation. The 
inclusion of an essay section in the Graduate Record Examination 
would also make for more satisfactory selection of applicants for 
graduate study. 

UNDERGRADUATE PREPARATION 

The specific talent of the historian is fed by direct and vicarious 
experience. A historian should have a wide knowledge of human 
activity. An undergraduate student who wishes to prepare for 
graduate study in history should study foreign languages and 
(depending upon previous education) introductory or advanced 
courses in literature, philosophy, the social sciences, and the 
natural sciences. Study in history should include a number of 
courses broad in scope and courses in at least two broad fields of 
history. Undergraduate study in history should usually range 
between 24 and 36 semester hours of credit. Quality of mind and 
breadth of historical knowledge are even more important than 
specialization and depth of historical knowledge. Instruction, how- 
ever varied in character, should develop the student's capacity for 
written and oral expression. Superior students should be encouraged 
to acquire training in the mechanics of research and historiography 
through honors study, which will usually demand an honors paper 
and a comprehensive examination. 



RECOMMENDATIONS 203 



THE MASTER'S DEGREE 

The master's degree serves several purposes. The degree with a 
thesis of 70 to 80 pages or substantial research papers in two 
seminars is desirable for secondary teachers and persons who aspire 
to governmental positions. Work for this degree usually should 
not require more than one calendar year of study. Many institu- 
tions award a one- or two-year master's degree in course of study 
for the Ph.D. Institutions should also exercise the right to award 
the master's degree to Ph.D. candidates upon the completion of 
all requirements for the doctorate except the dissertation. A master's 
degree in history representing less than two to three years of gradu- 
ate study would not meet the desired requirements for even tem- 
porary teachers of history at the college level. 

SHORTENING PH.D. TRAINING 

The committee notes with great concern that for 71% of the 
1958 Ph.D.s in history seven or more years elapsed between the 
beginning of graduate study and award of the Ph.D.; and that 
35% of the 1958 Ph.D.s were thirty-six years of age or older 
when the degree was awarded. Measures to shorten the period of 
training are clearly needed. Promotions in rank and salary increases 
are very often delayed, even in meritorious cases, until the Ph.D. 
degree is awarded. Even more serious is the damage to scholarship; 
many vital teachers and productive scholars can complete the degree 
in relatively shorter periods of graduate study and their fully 
trained abilities and services are needed now and in the decade 
ahead. 

1. The committee believes that the Ph.D. in history should re- 
quire no more than four academic years for most full-time Ph.D. 
candidates, including study for the master's degree and the com- 
pletion of the Ph.D. dissertation. Infrequent exceptions should 
be made for students in fields that require the acquisition of special 
skills. 



204 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

2. The major cause of delayed progress toward the Ph.D. is 
most often the financial inability of students to undertake full-time 
study. Both to recruit able students and to avoid prolonging their 
training the committee urgently recommends that more nonduty 
fellowships and scholarships be made available for graduate study 
in history. At this time they are especially needed for the period 
of dissertation research and writing. 

3. Many students are delayed by difficulty in passing foreign 
language examinations. It is highly desirable that students early 
achieve competence in foreign languages in schools and colleges. 
If graduate students are to be required to take examinations in 
foreign languages, each department should have autonomy in de- 
termining the method and number of examinations, and students 
should be required to demonstrate actual working knowledge early, 
preferably before or upon admission to graduate study. (Students 
unprepared in languages who otherwise show very great promise 
may be treated as exceptional cases.) If examinations are to be re- 
quired, they should be seriously given and seriously graded, proving 
the student's ability to use foreign languages as tools in courses 
and research seminars. Students should ideally be required to pass 
an examination in one foreign language before being admitted to 
graduate study, but in any case before being admitted to doctoral 
studies (i.e., by the beginning of the second year of graduate 
study). If an examination in a second foreign language is to be 
required, students should ideally pass it by the beginning of the 
second year of graduate study but in any case by the beginning 
of the third year of graduate study. 

4. Ph.D. candidates should be constantly engaged in either his- 
toriographical or research seminars during two full academic years 
(four semesters or six quarters of seminar work), but other course 
requirements should be minimal. 

5. Programs should be adjusted to each candidate's academic 
needs. Doctoral training is an arduous undertaking, and students 
who lack the qualities for success should early be channeled into 
other activities. For those who prove their capacity for Ph.D. -level 
training, the accumulation of course credits in Ph.D. programs 



RECOMMENDATIONS 205 

should be de-emphasized. No uniform total number of credit hours 
should be required of all candidates, and independent study by 
Ph.D. candidates should be encouraged. 

6. The committee believes that a deadline should be explicitly 
established in each department for the major Ph.D. examination 
(the "general," "comprehensive," "qualifying," or "preliminary" 

examination). In discussion and in writing about Ph.D. programs 
time could be saved if a common name could be given this exami- 
nation, most appropriately, perhaps, the "general" examination. 
Students should take this examination at the end of the second 
year of graduate study and no later than the middle of the third 
year of graduate study. 

7. Departments should explicitly establish the number of fields 
on which Ph.D. candidates are to be questioned during the general 
examination. The scope of these fields should be clearly defined 
with the deadline for the general examination in mind. 

8. The final Ph.D. examination, if required, should cover only 
the Ph.D. dissertation. 

9. In recent years the Ph.D. dissertation has become a serious 
cause of delay in Ph.D. programs. The subject should usually be 
sufficiently restricted to enable a successful Ph.D. candidate to 
complete the research and writing within one calendar year of in- 
tensive full-time work. The dissertation should be a substantial 
monograph, representing a high level of scholarly and literary 
quality in the opinion of the history faculty. To give evidence of 
this quality, dissertations usually need not be longer than 300 
typed pages (double-spaced typing) or 75,000 words. 

STRIKING A BALANCE 

The quality of teaching by historians in colleges and universities 
is generally considered to be high. Where it is less than satisfactory 
a complaint often heard is that the instructor has been trained in 
too narrow a field of specialization. 

It is essential that the historian acquire breadth of knowledge 
in his own and related disciplines. Much of this breadth must be 



206 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

acquired during the undergraduate years, for graduate study is 
primarily a time for specialization. But even in Ph.D. programs 
some provision must be made to develop breadth of mind in the 
student, especially during the first year of graduate study. 

Each department must find its own way to achieve the proper 
balance between breadth and specialization in its Ph.D. program. 
The following guiding principles may be useful: 

1. Careful faculty guidance of Ph.D. candidates is essential as 
they plan their programs of study at all levels of graduate study. 

2. Ph.D. training should involve the following: 

a. Specialization in one broad field of history (e.g., United 
States, medieval, or Far Eastern history) , and more intensive 
specialization in one aspect or period of this broad field. 

b. Acquaintance with the history of certain other restricted 
chronological periods and geographical areas (this often can 
be accomplished during the first year of graduate study as 
work toward the master's degree). 

c. Acquaintance with the classics of historical writing and 
with the possibilities, limits, theories, and values of the his- 
torian's craft. 

3. Thorough training and practice in research and writing is of 
major importance. At least four semesters of work in research 
seminars should usually be performed by each Ph.D. candidate. 
When a special seminar in historical method is offered, it may 
be counted as one of the four semesters (or six quarters) of 
research seminars. To assure a proper balance between speciali- 
zation and breadth, one of the four semesters (or at least one 
of six quarters) of seminar work should be in a field of history 
other than the special field of the Ph.D. candidate. 

4. All graduate students in courses that teach the history of non- 
English areas — not just in research seminars — should read for- 
eign language materials. 

5. Wide reading should be a constant part of graduate study in 
history. It is desirable that reading tutorials for graduate stu- 
dents supplement such lecture courses as they may take, and 



RECOMMENDATIONS 207 

that departments offer at regular intervals directed reading 
courses in which Ph.D. candidates become broadly acquainted 
with periodical, monographic, and synthesizing literature in 
the major fields of history. 

6. Ph.D. candidates should write dissertations on significant sub- 
jects, even though they may explore in detail only one aspect 
or a few aspects of a large topic. They should be asked to show 
the relationship of their research to previous research and to 
relate their subjects to the general fields of history in which 
they lie. 

7. Broadening of interest, knowledge, and outlook can be accom- 
plished through informal daily contacts among graduate stu- 
dents, but this is lost if all Ph.D. candidates in a department are 
specialists in a single field of history. Study by foreign students 
in American graduate departments of history can contribute to 
the balancing of breadth and specialization among Ph.D. can- 
didates. 

8. To integrate and broaden knowledge and fill in gaps, depart- 
ments that each year give the major examination to several 
Ph.D. candidates representing various fields of specialization 
might consider the desirability of offering a preparatory read- 
ing course-colloquium to them as a group, aiming at compara- 
tive discussion of the literature in the major fields of history. 

9. Neither the goal of breadth nor the goal of specialization should 
be allowed to prolong Ph.D. programs beyond a reasonable 
period of training (about four years of full-time graduate 
study or its equivalent). As one way to assure breadth without 
undue delay and without interfering undesirably with special- 
ization, some departments may wish to require training in fields 
of history for which the candidate will not be formally held 
responsible in the general examination for the Ph.D. That ex- 
amination should cover at least the broad field of specialization 
(e.g., ancient, Russian, or English history). 



208 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



PREPARATION FOR TEACHING 

While we strongly believe that Ph.D. training should continue 
to emphasize research scholarship, we are aware of the fact that 
most of those who receive Ph.D.s in history will devote more of 
their time to scholarly teaching than to research scholarship. Ph.D. 
programs should give much greater recognition than most of them 
have previously given to the problems that confront new Ph.D.s 
in their careers as college teachers. 

1. Lecturing under occasional supervision and guidance by Ph.D. 
candidates is highly desirable. Some departments can provide can- 
didates with experience as regular classroom teachers, either in the 
Ph.D. -training department or through internship arrangements 
with other institutions. Departments that cannot do this are urged 
to provide other opportunities for supervised practice lecturing 
by each Ph.D. candidate. The experience will prove helpful even 
to those candidates who do not become teachers. Tape recorders 
and film may be used to enable Ph.D. candidates to discover their 
own strengths and weaknesses. 

2. Practice in leading discussion groups is also desirable. This 
alone is not likely to prepare the Ph.D. candidate for teaching by 
the lecture method. But the teacher needs to develop the capacity 
for leading discussion as well as lecturing. In the development of 
this ability skillful coaching may be even more helpful than in 
the development of lecturing skills. 

3. In conjunction with practice lecturing and leading discus- 
sions, an informal and brief seminar or colloquium on college 
teaching and professional matters should be offered by the history 
department and perhaps required, though not necessarily for course 
credit. This might profitably provide Ph.D. candidates with experi- 
ence in the preparation of course outlines, reading lists, and exam- 
inations. 



RECOMMENDATIONS 209 



DISCOVERING TEACHING CAPACITY 

Most Ph.D.s in history become teachers of history in colleges or 
universities. Ph.D. programs can only begin their training as 
teachers. It is especially important, therefore, that ways be found 
early in their professional careers to discover and help them develop 
their capacities as teachers. The prerequisite for the discovery of 
capacity for teaching is that an appointing department know what 
specific qualities of teaching it seeks. Its definition of these qualities 
will acknowledge the variety of forms of good teaching. 

No single technique is adequate to discover teaching capacity. 
But one or more of the following suggestions may be usefully 
adopted: 

1. Appointing departments should ask specific questions about 
the teaching capacity of Ph.D. candidates in letters or telephone 
calls to the graduate departments. The graduate departments 
should be prepared to give specific information and give it 
candidly. 

2. An interview is indispensable. On-campus interviews with col- 
leagues and administrators are highly desirable. 

3. When possible, candidates for faculty positions should be in- 
vited to lecture or lead discussions before classes or informal 
groups (e.g., the history club) before appointments are made. 

4. Direct observation of the newly appointed instructor's work is 
desirable during the period of probationary appointment. 

a. Where jointly conducted courses are taught, senior colleagues 
can appraise the teaching capacity of new appointees. 

b. Where such courses are not offered, it is usually possible and 
always desirable from the beginning to have new instructors 
participate in oral examinations of graduate or undergradu- 
ate students. 

c. New teachers can be asked to contribute to departmental or 
interdepartmental faculty seminars. 

d. Contributions to programs of professional associations can 



210 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

be observed, and scholarly publications and unpublished 
scholarship can be critically evaluated. 

e. In addition, without restricting the inexperienced teacher's 
right to develop his own ideas, departments might encourage 
him to discuss his course outlines, reading lists, and examina- 
tions with senior colleagues. 

/. Senior colleagues may visit the classes of an inexperienced 
appointee during his probationary appointment. The purpose 
must be to help young historians improve their teaching, not 
to restrict their freedom of expression. Thus, visits should not 
be numerous; visits by more than one colleague are desirable; 
and they should be tactfully arranged with the knowledge 
of the new instructor. 



FOSTERING AND REWARDING GOOD TEACHING 

Historians devote more of their time to teaching than do col- 
leagues in most other academic disciplines. They also reach more 
students in their classrooms than do teachers in many other dis- 
ciplines. This situation should be acknowledged by the administra- 
tive policies of their institutions in the interest of promoting good 
instruction. 

As in the discovery of teaching capacity, no one method can 
ever suffice to foster good teaching; the reward for good teaching 
must take several forms. The following suggestions seem to this 
committee to be generally useful: 

1. A capacity for research scholarship is a very important 
quality of a good teacher of history. But quantity of publication 
should not be the only index of capacity for scholarship. Teaching 
based on scholarship and unpublished research scholarship of high 
quality as well as published works should be rewarded in policies 
governing tenure appointments, promotion, and compensation. 
Both successful teaching and evidence of research scholarship 
should be expected of history teachers and both should be fostered 
by colleges and universities. But superlative performance in either 



RECOMMENDATIONS 211 

of these activities should be rewarded by promotions and salary- 
increases. 

2. In so far as they are able, appointing departments should 
name to the history faculty persons who have completed the Ph.D. 
Much of the preparation of graduate students as teachers is accom- 
plished in the last phases of Ph.D. programs, and graduate depart- 
ments can appraise the capacity of a fully trained Ph.D. much more 
accurately than they can estimate the promise of a Ph.D. candidate 
or the holder of a master's degree. 

3. The new instructor can informally be given encouragement 
and advice — often in the form of tactful hints — by his colleagues. 

4. In so far as possible, the new instructor should be freed of 
chores such as committee work that contribute little or nothing 
to his growth as a scholar-teacher during the first year or so of 
his service. 

5. Both the new and the older instructor should be given an 
opportunity to teach courses in the field of his specialization (e.g., 
United States, Latin- American, or English history). 

6. Classes should be scheduled in ways that will foster the devel- 
opment of the faculty member as teacher and as scholar. Even a 
heavy teaching load can often be scheduled to leave whole days free 
of classroom teaching. 

7. The teaching load of a college instructor is determined not 
only by the number of hours of classroom teaching but also by the 
number of different preparations he must make and the number 
of students he teaches in a given term. In the interest of satisfactory 
teaching as well as satisfactory research scholarship, college teachers 
of history should teach no more than 12 hours per week and have 
no more than three separate preparations. It is highly desirable that 
they teach no more than 9 hours per week. In Ph.D. -training de- 
partments the faculty member has a number of additional obliga- 
tions that are not easily measured in terms of hours of teaching and 
number of separate courses. Instructors in these departments should 
teach no more than 9 hours per week; and the usual load should 
not exceed 6 hours with no more than two separate courses or 
seminars. 



212 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

8. The provision of research and secretarial assistance is needed 
if scholarly teaching and the research scholarship of teachers are to 
be fostered. Typing services can be especially helpful. Tape record- 
ers for office use can save faculty time and secretarial expense. 

9. Attendance at professional meetings is essential if college and 
university instructors are to grow as scholars and teachers. It should 
be subsidized by their institutions. 

10. For those who teach the history of foreign areas, travel 
abroad at intervals is necessary if the teachers are to make vital 
contributions in the classroom and in research. Travel is already 
subsidized to some extent by foundation and governmental grants. 
It should also be subsidized by the colleges and universities. 

11. Leaves of absence to study a new field at a university that 
is strong in the field of new interest (e.g., in Asian history) should 
be granted, especially when the instructor is expected to teach in 
a field in which he needs additional training. 

12. Colleges as well as universities should foster the growth of 
the scholar-teacher by supporting research scholarship. Sabbaticals 
or leaves with full salary for research, the purchase of research tools 
(e.g., microfilm readers), support for building library holdings 
of sources, and free interlibrary loan services are desirable means 
of fostering the development of scholarly teaching. 

13. Colleges and universities should give recognition to superla- 
tive teaching through public honors and reward it by promotions 
and salary increases. These may be desirably supplemented by spe- 
cial annual prizes and cash awards for excellence in teaching. 

14. Professional associations should elect outstanding teachers of 
history to their high offices. In this and other ways they may 
recognize and reward scholarly teaching of history, thus fostering 
it in the colleges and universities. 

15. The Ph.D. -training departments have a special responsibility 
to foster and reward excellent teaching, for they do much to set 
the tone that prevails in the colleges. Attitudes and policies in these 
institutions must be made to convey to Ph.D. candidates the 
conviction that excellent teaching is a primary responsibility of 
the historian who joins a college or university faculty. 



APPENDIXES 



APPENDIX A 

In November, 195 8, a 12-page questionnaire was mailed to 203 
history faculties in colleges that were selected as better-than-aver- 
age representatives of various types of institutions. None of these 
was offering the Ph.D. in history in 195 8. It should be emphasized 
that many excellent four-year colleges were not included. Some 
institutions listed in Appendix B are academically superior to some 
in this sample. When the term "better colleges" has been used in 
the text it describes the sample as a whole in comparison with the 
random sample noted in Appendix B as a whole. Used in this way, 
the term can be convincingly defended. 

Response to our questionnaire to the "better" colleges was good. 
Two-thirds (62% or 126) of the questionnaires were returned. 
They usually w T ere completed by the departmental chairmen, 
though many chairmen consulted other members of the history 
faculty in formulating answers to our questions. 

This questionnaire was designed to discover chiefly: (1) the 
qualifications and strength of history faculties; (2) conditions of 
teaching history and expected changes; and (3) degree of satisfac- 
tion or dissatisfaction with new Ph.D.s in history and suggestions 
for the improvement of graduate training. 

215 



214 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

Departments in the following institutions, listed by states 
within a region, completed this questionnaire: 



EAST (38) 

Connecticut: Connecticut College; Wesleyan University. Delaware: 
University of Delaware. District of Columbia: District of Columbia 
Teachers College; Howard University. Maine: Bowdoin College; Univer- 
sity of Maine. Maryland: Goucher College; Maryland State Teachers Col- 
lege; U.S. Naval Academy; Washington College. Massachusetts: Am- 
herst College; Mount Holyoke College; Wellesley College; Williams Col- 
lege. New Hampshire: Dartmouth College. New Jersey: New Jersey State 
Teachers College (Jersey City). New York: Brooklyn College; City Col- 
lege of the City of New York; Columbia University (Columbia College 
and School of General Studies) ; Hofstra College; Hunter College of the 
City of New York; Queens College; Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; St. 
Bonaventure University; College for Teachers (Albany) ; Teachers Col- 
lege (New Paltz) ; U.S. Military Academy; Vassar College. Pennsylvania: 
Bucknell University; Haverford College; Lafayette College; State Teachers 
College (West Chester) ; Swarthmore College; Temple University. 
Rhode Island: University of Rhode Island. Vermont: University of 
Vermont. 

SOUTH (32) 

Alabama: Birmingham-Southern College; State Teachers College (Flor- 
ence) ; Talladega College. Arkansas: Arkansas State College (State Col- 
lege). Florida: Rollins College; University of Miami. Georgia: Agnes 
Scott College; Atlanta University. Kentucky: University of Louisville. 
Louisiana: Dillard University; Loyola University; Southwestern Louisiana 
Institute. Mississippi: Millsaps College; Mississippi Southern College; Uni- 
versity of Mississippi. North Carolina: Davidson College; East Carolina 
College; North Carolina College (Durham) ; North Carolina State Col- 
lege. South Carolina: Clemson Agricultural College. Tennessee: East 
Tennessee State College; Memphis State College; Univerity of Chatta- 
nooga; University of the South. Texas: Agricultural and Mechanical 
College of Texas; Baylor University; North Texas State College; Southern 
Methodist University; University of Houston. Virginia: College of Wil- 
liam and Mary; Sweet Briar College; Washington and Lee University. 



APPENDIXES 215 



MIDWEST (34) 

Illinois: Bradley University; Illinois State Normal University; Wheaton 
College. Indiana: Ball State Teachers College; DePauw University. Iowa: 
Cornell College; Grinnell College; Iowa State University of Science and 
Technology; Iowa State Teachers College. Kansas: Kansas State Univer- 
sity of Agriculture and Applied Science; University of Wichita; Washburn 
University. Michigan: Albion College; University of Detroit. Minnesota: 
State Teachers College (Moorhead). Missouri: Lincoln University. 
Nebraska: Creighton University; Municipal University of Omaha; 
Nebraska State Teachers College (Wayne). Ohio: Antioch College; Bald- 
win-Wallace College; Case Institute of Technology; College of Wooster; 
Kenyon College; Miami University; Oberlin College; Ohio University; 
University of Akron; University of Cincinnati; University of Dayton. 
Wisconsin: Lawrence College; Marquette University; Wisconsin State 
College (Oshkosh) ; Wisconsin State College (Superior) . 

WEST (22) 

Arizona: University of Arizona. California: Chico State College; Mills 
College; Occidental College; San Diego State College; San Francisco State 
College; San Jose State College. Colorado: Colorado College; Colorado 
State University; U.S. Air Force Academy; University of Denver; West- 
ern State College of Colorado. Hawaii: University of Hawaii. Montana: 
Montana State University. North Dakota: State Teachers College (Minot). 
Oregon: Lewis and Clark College; Oregon State College (Corvallis) ; Reed 
College; University of Portland. South Dakota: State University of South 
Dakota. Washington: Western Washington College of Education. Wyo- 
ming: University of Wyoming. 



APPENDIX B 

A seven-page questionnaire on history in the colleges was sent 
in November, 1958, to 562 four-year colleges. This random sample 
included all four-year colleges (not junior colleges and not institu- 
tions offering the Ph.D. in history) listed in 1958 as members of 



216 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

the American Council on Education and not included in the sample 
of colleges noted in Appendix A. Two- thirds of the history faculties 
(67% or 376) returned usable questionnaires. The 376 question- 
naires represent history programs in the following institutions: 

EAST (133) 

Connecticut: Fairfield University; Hillyer College; New Haven State 
Teachers College; Teachers College of Connecticut (New Britain) ; U.S. 
Coast Guard Academy; University of Bridgeport. District of Columbia: 
Gallaudet College; Trinity College; Washington Missionary College. 
Maryland: College of Notre Dame of Maryland; Hood College; Loyola 
College; Maryland State Teachers College (Frostburg) ; Mount St. Agnes 
College; Mount St. Mary's College; St. Joseph College; Western Maryland 
College. Massachusetts: Anna Maria College; Babson Institute; College of 
the Holy Cross; College of Our Lady of the Elms; Eastern Nazarene Col- 
lege; Emmanuel College; Hebrew Teachers College; Lesley College; Merri- 
mack College; New England Conservatory of Music; Newton College of 
the Sacred Heart; Regis College; Simmons College; Springfield College; 
Wheaton College. New Hampshire: Mount St. Mary College; Rivier Col- 
lege; St. Anselm's College. New Jersey: Caldwell College; College of St. 
Elizabeth; Drew University; Georgian Court College; Monmouth College; 
Newark State College; New Jersey State Teachers College (Trenton) ; 
Newark College of Engineering, Rider College, Stevens Institute of Tech- 
nology; Upsala College. New York: Alfred University; Canisius College; 
Clarkson College of Technology; College of Mount St. Vincent; College 
of New Rochelle; College of St. Rose; Cooper Union; Elmira College; 
Hamilton College; Iona College; Keuka College; Le Moyne College; Long 
Island University; Marymount College; Nazareth College of Rochester; 
Pace College; Mount St. Joseph Teachers College; Pratt Institute; Siena 
College; St. Joseph's College for Women; St. Lawrence University; Sarah 
Lawrence College; Harpur College; College for Teachers (Buffalo) ; 
Teachers College (Brockport) ; Teachers College (Cortland) ; Teachers 
College (Fredonia) ; Teachers College (Oneonta) ; Teachers College 
(Plattsburgh) ; Teachers College (Potsdam) ; Union College and Uni- 
versity; U.S. Merchant Marine Academy; Wagner Lutheran College; 
Wells College; Yeshiva University. 'Pennsylvania: Allegheny College; 
Beaver College; Chatham College; Chestnut Hill College; College 



APPENDIXES 217 

Misericordia; Drexel Institute of Technology; Elizabethtown College; 
Franklin and Marshall College; Gannon College; Geneva College; Gettys- 
burg College; Grove City College; Juniata College; King's College; La 
Salle College; Lebanon Valley College; Lincoln University; Mount Mercy 
College; Muhlenberg College; Philadelphia Textile Institute; St. Francis 
College; St. Joseph's College; St. Vincent College; Seton Hill College; 
State Teachers College (Bloomsburg) ; State Teachers College (East 
Stroudsburg) ; State Teachers College (Edinboro) ; State Teachers Col- 
lege (Indiana) ; State Teachers College (Kutztown) ; State Teachers Col- 
lege (Lock Haven) ; State Teachers College (Mansfield) ; State Teachers 
College ( Millers ville) ; State Teachers College (Shippensburg) ; State 
Teachers College (Slippery Rock) ; Susquehanna University; University of 
Scranton; Ursinus College; Washington and Jefferson College; Waynesburg 
College; Westminster College; Wilkes College; Wilson College. Rhode 
Island: Rhode Island School of Design. Vermont: Norwich University; 
St. Michael's College. West Virginia: Bethany College; Concord College; 
Marshall College; Shepherd College; West Liberty State College; West 
Virginia Wesleyan College. Puerto Rico: Inter-American University of 
Puerto Rico. 

SOUTH (85) 

Alabama: Alabama Polytechnic Institute; Howard College. Arkansas: 
Arkansas State Teachers College (Conway) ; Harding College; Hendrix 
College; Southern State College. Florida: Bethune-Cookman College; 
Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University; Stetson University; Uni- 
versity of Tampa; Jacksonville University. Georgia: Brenau College; 
Georgia State College for Women; Mercer University; Savannah State 
College. Kentucky: Berea College; Centre College of Kentucky; Kentucky 
State College (Frankfort) ; Transylvania College. Louisiana: Grambling 
College; Louisiana College; Louisiana Polytechnic Institute; Northeast 
Louisiana State College; Southern University and Agricultural and Me- 
chanical College; Xavier University. Mississippi: Alcorn Agricultural and 
Mechanical College; Delta State College; Mississippi College; Mississippi 
State College for Women. North Carolina: Agricultural and Technical 
College of North Carolina; Bennett College; Catawba College; Elon Col- 
lege; Johnson C. Smith University; Livingstone College; Meredith College;- 
Queens College; St. Augustine's College. Oklahoma: Central State College; 
Langs ton University; Oklahoma College for Women; Panhandle Agri- 



218 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

cultural and Mechanical College; Phillips University; Southeastern State 
College. South Carolina: Erskine College; South Carolina State College 
(Orangeburg) ; Winthrop College. Tennessee: Austin Peay State College; 
David Lipscomb College; King College; Knoxville College; Le Moyne 
College; Lincoln Memorial University; Maryville College; Middle Tennes- 
see State College; Siena College; Southwestern at Memphis; Tennessee Agri- 
cultural and Industrial State University; Union University; Belmont Col- 
lege; Tennessee Wesleyan College. Texas: Austin College; Incarnate Word 
College; Lamar State College of Technology; Mary Hardin-Baylor College; 
Prairie View Agricultural and Mechanical College; St. Mary's University 
of San Antonio; Southwestern University; Stephen F. Austin State Col- 
lege; Sul Ross State College; Texas Southern University; Texas Womens 
University; Texas Wesleyan College; West Texas State College; Wiley 
College. Virginia: Emory and Henry College; Hampden-Sydney Col- 
lege; Lynchburg College; Madison College; Randolph-Macon College; 
Randolph-Macon Woman's College; Roanoke College; University of Rich- 
mond; Virginia Polytechnic Institute; Virginia State College. 

MIDWEST (117) 

Illinois: Augustana College; Aurora College; Barat College of the Sacred 
Heart; Blackburn College; Carthage College; Chicago Teachers College; 
College of St. Francis; De Paul University; Eastern Illinois University; 
Elmhurst College; Illinois Institute of Technology; Illinois Wesleyan Uni- 
versity; Knox College; Millikin University; Monmouth College; North 
Central College; Northern Baptist Theological Seminary; Northern Illinois 
University; Principia College; Quincy College; Rockford College; Roose- 
velt University; Rosary College; St. Procopius College; Shimer College. 
Indiana: Butler University; Evansville College; Franklin College of In- 
diana; Indiana State Teachers College; Marian College; St. Joseph's College; 
St. Mary's College; Taylor University; Valparaiso University; Wabash 
College. Iowa: Central College; Clarke College; Coe College; Lor as Col- 
lege; Luther College; University of Dubuque; Wartburg College; Westmar 
College. Kansas: Bethany College; Fort Hays Kansas State College; Friends 
University; Kansas State Teachers College; Mount St. Scholastica College; 
St. Benedict's College; Southwestern College. Michigan: Calvin College; 
Central Michigan College; Kalamazoo College; Marygrove College; Michi- 
gan College of Mining and Technology; Northern Michigan College; 
Western Michigan College. Minnesota: Augsburg College and Theological 



APPENDIXES 219 

Seminary; College of St. Scholastica; College of St. Teresa; College of St. 
Thomas; Gustavus Adolphus College; Hamline University; Macalester 
College; St. John's University; St. Mary's College; St. Olaf College; State 
Teachers College (Bemidji) ; State Teachers College (Mankato) ; State 
Teachers College (St. Cloud) ; State Teachers College (Winona). Missouri: 
Central College; Drury College; Fontbonne College; Harris Teachers Col- 
lege; Lindenwood College; Maryville College of the Sacred Heart; North- 
west Missouri State College; Southeast Missouri State College; Webster 
College; Westminster College; William Jewell College. Nebraska: College 
of Saint Mary; Doane College; Duchesne College; Hastings College; Mid- 
land College; Nebraska State Teachers College (Kearney) ; Nebraska 
Wesleyan University; Union College. Ohio: Ashland College; Capital Uni- 
versity; Central State College; College of Mount St. Joseph-on-the-Ohio; 
Denison University; Fenn College; Heidelberg College; Hiram College; 
Kent State University; Lake Erie College; Marietta College; Muskingum 
College; Ohio Northern University; Otterbein College; Western College 
for Women; Wilmington College; Wittenberg College; Xavier University. 
Wisconsin: Alverno College; Mount Mary College; Northland College; 
Ripon College; Stout State College; Viterbo College; Wisconsin State 
College (Eau Claire) ; Wisconsin State College (River Falls) ; Wisconsin 
State College (Whitewater). 

WEST (41) 

Arizona: Arizona State College (Flagstaff) ; Arizona State College 
(Tempe). California: California State Polytechnic College; California 
Western University; College of the Holy Names; College of Notre Dame; 
Dominican College of San Rafael; George Pepperdine College; Golden 
Gate College; Humboldt State College; Immaculate Heart College; Loyola 
University of Los Angeles; Mount St. Mary's College; Pacific Union Col- 
lege; Pasadena College; Sacramento State College; San Diego College for 
Women; San Francisco College for Women; University of Redlands; West- 
mont College; Whittier College. Colorado: Colorado State College; Regis 
College. Idaho: Northwest Nazarene College. Montana: College of Great 
Falls; Eastern Montana College of Education; Montana School of Mines; 
Northern Montana College. New Mexico: New Mexico Institute of 
Mining and Technology. North Dakota: Jamestown College; State Normal 
and Industrial College (Ellendale) ; State Teachers College (Mayville) ; 
State Teachers College (Valley City). Oregon: Linfield College; Maryl- 



220 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

hurst College; Portland State College. South Dakota: Augustana College; 
South Dakota State College (Brookings) ; South Dakota School of Mines 
and Technology. Washington: Central Washington College of Education; 
Whitman College. 



APPENDIX C 

Questionnaires of the type noted in Appendixes A and B were 
also received from history faculties in 51 junior colleges. All the 
responding junior colleges are members of the American Council 
on Education. Institutions in all parts of the nation are represented 
in the sample. Listed alphabetically by name of college within a 
region, they are as follows: 

EAST (16) 

Bennett Junior College, Millbrook, New York; Briarcliff College, Briar- 
cliff Manor, New York; Colby Junior College, New London, New Hamp- 
shire; Endicott Junior College, Beverley, Massachusetts; Gwynedd Mercy 
Junior College, Gwynedd, Pennsylvania; Hershey Junior College, Hershey, 
Pennsylvania; Jersey City Junior College, Jersey City, New Jersey; Key- 
stone Junior College, La Plume, Pennsylvania; Montgomery Junior Col- 
lege, Takoma Park, Maryland; New York City Community College of 
Applied Arts and Sciences, Brooklyn, New York; Parker Collegiate In- 
stitute, Brooklyn, New York; Pine Manor Junior College, Wellesley, 
Massachusetts; Potomac State College of West Virginia University, Keyser, 
West Virginia; Valley Forge Military Junior College, Wayne, Pennsylvania; 
Wesley Junior College, Dover, Delaware; Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 
Worcester, Massachusetts. 

SOUTH (11) 

Amarillo College, Amarillo, Texas; Averett College, Danville, Virginia; 
Daniel Payne College, Birmingham, Alabama; Del Mar College, Corpus 
Christi, Texas; Eastern Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College, 
Wilburton, Oklahoma; Jones County Junior College, Ellisville, Mississippi; 
Lee College, Bay town, Texas; Little Rock University, Little Rock, Arkan- 



APPENDIXES 221 

sas; Northern Oklahoma Junior College, Tonka wa, Oklahoma; South 
Georgia College, Douglas, Georgia; Wharton County Junior College, 
Wharton, Texas. 

MIDWEST (12) 

Christian College, Columbia, Missouri; Gogebic Community College, 
Ironwood, Michigan; Graceland College, Lamoni, Iowa; Henry Ford Com- 
munity College, Dearborn, Michigan; Highland Park Junior College, High- 
land Park, Michigan; Junior College of Kansas City, Kansas City, Mis- 
souri; La Salle-Peru Oglesby Junior College, La Salle, Illinois; Monticello 
College, Godfrey, Illinois; Stephens College, Columbia, Missouri; Vincennes 
University, Vincennes, Indiana; Virginia Junior College, Virginia, Minne- 
sota; William Woods College, Fulton, Missouri. 

WEST (12) 

Colorado Woman's College, Denver, Colorado; Compton College, 
Compton, California; Dixie Junior College, St. George, Utah; Mesa Col- 
lege, Grand Junction, Colorado; Modesto Junior College, Modesto, Cali- 
fornia; Mount San Antonio College, Pomona, California; New Mexico 
Military Institute, Roswell, New Mexico; North Idaho Junior College, 
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; Orange Coast College, Costa Mesa, California; 
Pasadena City College, Pasadena, California; San Bernardino Valley Col- 
lege, San Bernardino, California; Weber College, Ogden, Utah. 



APPENDIX D 

On November 2, 1959, Dexter Perkins sent a letter to presidents 
of 200 colleges, none of which then offered the Ph.D. in history, 
asking the following questions: 

1. In adding historians to the faculty, how important to you 
is the proof or promise of teaching ability as compared with proof 
or promise of research scholarship? 

2. How do you discover and evaluate the qualifications of can- 
didates (and newly appointed faculty members) as teachers? 



222 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

By December 18, 1959, the committee had received responses 
from a total of 134 presidents, academic vice-presidents, or deans. 
The letters came from 44 states (including the two newest ones) 
plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. The letters were 
regionally distributed as follows: East, 37; South, 32; Midwest, 36; 
and West, 29. Almost all the letters were thoughtful and helpful, 
and many of them ran to two pages of single-spaced type. Letters 
were received from executives of most of the colleges named in 
Appendix A, plus a number of others. 

The institutions from which the committee received replies are 
listed below. It will be noted that they include public and private 
colleges and that among the latter are institutions that are pre- 
dominantly Negro, predominantly male, female, Protestant, Jewish, 
or Catholic. The list purposefully included a number of teacher- 
training colleges, but the great majority of the institutions are 
primarily arts and sciences colleges. While the colleges are represen- 
tative in many ways, they are — by design — unrepresentative in 
one sense: they include a disproportionately large number of col- 
leges that have considerable reputations for quality among institu- 
tions of their type. 

EAST (37) 

Connecticut: Connecticut College; Danbury State Teachers College; 
Trinity College; The University of Connecticut; Wesley an University. 
Delaware: University of Delaware. District of Columbia: District of 
Columbia Teachers College; Howard University. Maine: Bowdoin College; 
Colby College; University of Maine. Maryland: Goucher College; Morgan 
State College; Washington College. Massachusetts: Amherst College; 
Brandeis University; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Mount 
Holyoke College; University of Massachusetts; Wellesley College. New 
Hampshire: Dartmouth College; University of New Hampshire. New 
York: City College (New York) ; Colgate University; Hofstra College; 
Hunter College of the City of New York; Queens College; Rensselaer 
Polytechnic Institute; Skidmore College; Teachers College (New Paltz) ; 
Vassar College. Pennsylvania: Bucknell University; Carnegie Institute of 



APPENDIXES 223 

Technology; Haverford College; Temple University. Vermont: Univer- 
sity of Vermont. Puerto Rico: Universidad de Puerto Rico. 



SOUTH (32) 

Alabama: Alabama College; Birmingham-Southern College; State Teach- 
ers College (Florence). Arkansas: Arkansas State College; Philander Smith 
College. Florida: Florida Southern College; Rollins College; University of 
Miami. Georgia: Agnes Scott College. Kentucky: Murray State College; 
University of Louisville; Western Kentucky State College. Louisiana: 
Loyola University; Southwestern Louisiana Institute. Mississippi: Millsaps 
College; Mississippi Southern College. North Carolina: Davidson College; 
East Carolina College; North Carolina College at Durham; North Carolina 
State College; Western Carolina College; Women's College, University of 
North Carolina. South Carolina: Clemson College. Tennessee: East Ten- 
nessee State College; University of Chattanooga. Texas: Agricultural and 
Mechanical College of Texas; North Texas State College; Sam Houston 
State Teachers College; Southern Methodist University; Trinity Univer- 
sity. Virginia: College of William and Mary; Sweet Briar College. 

MIDWEST (36) 

Illinois: Illinois State Normal University; MacMurray College; South- 
ern Illinois University; Wheaton College. Indiana: DePauw University; 
Hanover College; Purdue University. Iowa: Cornell College; Drake Uni- 
versity; Grinnell College; Iowa State University of Science and Tech- 
nology; Iowa State Teachers College. Kansas: Kansas State University of 
Agriculture and Applied Science; Washburn University. Michigan: Albion 
College; Eastern Michigan College. Minnesota: Carleton College; State 
College (Moorhead). Missouri: Park College. Nebraska: Creighton Uni- 
versity; Municipal University of Omaha; Nebraska State Teachers Col- 
lege (Wayne). Ohio: Baldwin-Wallace College; Bowling Green State 
University; Case Institute of Technology; Kenyon College; Miami Uni- 
versity; Oberlin College; Ohio University; University of Akron; Uni- 
versity of Cincinnati; University of Toledo. Wisconsin: Beloit College; 
Lawrence College; Marquette University; Wisconsin State College 
(Oshkosh). 



224 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

WEST (29) 

Alaska: University of Alaska. Arizona: University of Arizona. Cali- 
fornia: California Institute of Technology; Chico State College; College 
of the Pacific; Mills College; Occidental College; San Diego State College; 
San Francisco State College; San Jose State College; University of Santa 
Clara; University of San Francisco. Colorado: Colorado State University; 
University of Denver; Western State College of Colorado. Hawaii: Uni- 
versity of Hawaii. Montana: Montana State University. Nevada: Univer- 
sity of Nevada. North Dakota: State Teachers College (Minot). Oregon: 
Lewis and Clark College; Oregon State College (Corvallis) ; Reed College; 
University of Portland. South Dakota: State University of South Dakota. 
Utah: Brigham Young University; Utah State University. Washington: 
Eastern Washington College of Education; Western Washington College 
of Education. Wyoming: University of Wyoming. 



APPENDIX E 

Twenty-eight Ph.D. -training history departments were visited 
by at least one member of the Committee on Graduate Education 
in History in 1959 or were represented by a member of the commit- 
tee. Those marked by no footnote in the list below were visited by 
Professor Snell. On their campuses or at history conventions he 
interviewed more than 230 members of Ph.D. -training history 
faculties, taking notes during the interviews or dictating summaries 
of the interviews on the same day they occurred. Full summaries 
of these interviews were read by all members of the committee in 
1959. 

These interviews sought to find detailed and general answers to 
three fundamental questions: (1) What is wrong with doctoral 
training in history at your present institution? (2) What was 
wrong with it in the program where you took your Ph.D.? (3) 
"What suggestions would you make for the improvement of Ph.D. 
training in history? 



APPENDIXES 225? 

The 28 universities visited by or represented on the committee werer 
East (9) : Columbia University, Cornell University, 1 University of Dela- 
ware, 1 Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, 2 University of 
Pennsylvania, Princeton University, University of Rochester, and Yale 
University. 3 South ( 5 ) : Duke University, 1 Florida State University, Uni- 
versity of North Carolina, 1 University of Texas, and Tulane University. 
Midwest (6): University of Chicago, Indiana University, University of 
Minnesota, Northwestern University, University of Notre Dame, and the 
University of Wisconsin. West ( 8 ) : University of California, 1 University 
of California at Los Angeles, 1 University of Colorado, Occidental Col- 
lege, 1 University of Oregon, University of Southern California, 1 Stanford 
University and the University of Washington. 



APPENDIX F 

Three types of questionnaires were completed by departments 
offering Ph.D. training in history. In November, 1958, a 21 -page 
questionnaire was distributed to all history departments in the 
nation known to be offering doctoral training. Usable question- 
naires were returned in time for tabulating by history departments 
in the 77 institutions listed below. One arrived later from the Uni- 
versity of Delaware, which only inaugurated its Ph.D. program in 
history in 1960. From Vanderbilt University we received a care- 
fully detailed letter that was most helpful in lieu of a question- 
naire. Partially completed questionnaires were received from Ford- 
ham University, George Washington University, and the Hartford 
Seminary Foundation in addition to the 77 institutions noted below. 

The basic questionnaire to departments with doctoral programs 
solicited information about: (1) scope and general character of 
the graduate program; (2) the discovery, encouragement, and 
recognition of able teachers of history; (3) the master's program; 
(4) length of time required for the Ph.D.; (5) faculty objectives 

1 Visited by Dexter Perkins. 

2 Visited by Boyd C. Shaf er. 



3 Represented by Leonard Krieger. 



226 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

in doctoral training, and faculty supervision of Ph.D. candidates; 
(6) anticipated changes; and (7) recommendations for the im- 
provement of graduate training for college teachers of history. 

A supplementary questionnaire, distributed in November, 1959, 
asked for a report on the number of Ph.D.s in history awarded in 
1959, and for impressions of supply-demand relationships. It also 
asked the Ph.D. -training departments to list separately the top 20 
centers for Ph.D. training in (1) United States history and (2) 
modern European history. By December 14, 1959, reports had 
been received from 71 departments, 54 of which presented rank 
lists as requested. The references in Chapters 1 to 9 of this report 
to "top-prestige" institutions are based upon composite rank lists 
compiled from the reports of these 54 Ph.D. -training departments, 
distributed as follows: East, 17 departments; South, 15; Midwest, 
16; West, 6. 

On May 15, 1960, a second supplementary questionnaire was 
distributed to all Ph.D. -training history departments. In this one 
they were asked to report "how many persons are virtually certain 
to be awarded the Ph.D. in history at your institution in June or 
August, I960," and how many had already been awarded the 
degree in 1960, if any. On the basis of reports received from all 
but four Ph.D. -training history departments we have made our 
estimate of doctoral production in history for 1960 (Table 2-2). 

Most of the data in the text from Ph.D. programs in history 
were supplied by departments in the following 77 institutions: 

EAST (27) 

American University; Boston College; Boston University; Brown Uni- 
versity; Bryn Mawr College; University of Buffalo; Catholic University 
of America; Clark University; Columbia University; Cornell University; 
Georgetown University; Harvard University (including Radcliffe) ; Johns 
Hopkins University; Lehigh University; University of Maryland; New 
York University; Pennsylvania State University; University of Pennsyl- 
vania; University of Pittsburgh; Princeton University; University of 
Rochester; Rutgers University; St. John's University; Syracuse University; 
Tufts University; West Virginia University; and Yale University. 



APPENDIXES 227 

SOUTH (19) 

University of Alabama; Duke University; Emory University; Florida 
State University; University of Florida; George Peabody College for 
Teachers; University of Georgia; University of Kentucky; Louisiana State 
University; Mississippi State University; University of North Carolina; 
University of Oklahoma; Rice Institute; University of South Carolina; 
University of Tennessee; Texas Technological College; University of 
Texas; Tulane University; and the University of Virginia. 

MIDWEST (19) 

University of Chicago; University of Illinois; Indiana University; State 
University of Iowa; University of Kansas; Loyola University (Chicago); 
Michigan State University; University of Michigan; University of Minne- 
sota; University of Missouri; University of Nebraska; Northwestern Uni- 
versity; University of Notre Dame; Ohio State University; St. Louis 
University; Washington University; Wayne State University; Western 
Reserve University; and the University of Wisconsin (including the His- 
tory of Science Department). 



WEST (12) 

University of California; University of California at Los Angeles; 
University of Colorado; University of Idaho; University of New Mexico; 
University of North Dakota; University of Oregon; University of South- 
ern California; Stanford University; University of Utah; Washington 
State University; and the University of Washington. 



APPENDIX G 

In a further attempt to estimate the changing relationship be- 
tween supply of Ph.D.s in history and demand for them, a ques- 
tionnaire was distributed in September, 1959, to the placement 
officers in all institutions in the nation known to offer Ph.D. train- 



228 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

ing in history. They were asked to report on employment trends 
from 1954 through 1959. 

Usable answers were returned by placement officers in the following 
16 institutions: East (6) : Columbia University; Cornell University; Har- 
vard University; Lehigh University; University of Pennsylvania; and 
Yale University. South (4) : Duke University; George Peabody College 
for Teachers; University of Kentucky; and University of Tennessee. 
Midwest (5) : State University of Iowa; University of Kansas; University 
of Minnesota; University of Nebraska; and Washington University (Mo.). 
West (1): University of California (Berkeley). 



APPENDIX H 

In August, 1959, a 22-page questionnaire was distributed to 284 
persons who were reported by 79 graduate schools to have been 
awarded the Ph.D. degree in history in 1958. Of these, 182 returned 
usable questionnaires in time for tabulation. A total of 49 institu- 
tions (83% of those awarding Ph.D.s in history in 1958) are 
represented by the Ph.D.s returning questionnaires. The sample 
represents all major producers of Ph.D.s in history and is otherwise 
representative. Thus, while the seven top-prestige programs awarded 
34% of all Ph.D.s in history in the nation, 1955-1959, they are 
represented in our sample by 36% of all 182 questionnaires; region- 
ally, 46% of the questionnaires are from graduates of Eastern uni- 
versities, 24% are from Midwestern, 17% from Southern, and 
13% from Western institutions. 

The questionnaire to 1958 Ph.D.s solicited information about 
personal and academic background, almost all aspects of graduate 
training, job experience since 1958, and the qualities of good and 
poor teachers with whom they had studied. It also solicited sug- 
gestions for changes in graduate training in history. 

The 49 institutions represented by the 182 questionnaires from Ph.D.s 
in history of 1958 are: East (18): Boston College; Boston University; 
Brown University; Catholic University of America; Columbia University; 
Teachers College of Columbia University; Cornell University; Fordham 



APPENDIXES 229 

University; Georgetown University; Harvard University; Johns Hopkins 
University; New York University; University of Pennsylvania; Univer- 
sity of Pittsburgh; Princeton University; University of Rochester; St. 
John's University; and Yale University. Midwest (12): University of 
Chicago; University of Illinois; Indiana University; University of Michi- 
gan; University of Minnesota; University of Missouri; University of 
Nebraska; Northwestern University; Ohio State University; St. Louis 
University; Western Reserve University; University of Wisconsin. South 
(12): Duke University; University of Florida; George Peabody College 
for Teachers; University of Georgia; University of Kentucky; University 
of North Carolina; University of Oklahoma; Texas Technological College; 
University of Texas; Tulane University; Vanderbilt University; Univer- 
sity of Virginia. West (7) : University of California; University of Cali- 
fornia at Los Angeles; Claremont Graduate School; University of New 
Mexico; University of North Dakota; University of Southern California; 
and Stanford University. 



APPENDIX I 

As noted in the text, a considerable amount of questionnaire - 
collected and processed data on 306 graduate students in history 
(plus comparable data on 2,536 other graduate students) was pro- 
vided this study by the National Opinion Research Center of the 
University of Chicago. The data on history graduate students from 
the South and West are not as adequate as are the data from the 
East and Midwest, because universities that are major producers of 
Ph.D.s in history were not included in the Eastern and Western 
samples. But as a national sample of history graduate students the 
NORC material was invaluable to this study. 

The students questioned by the NORC were in residence in the year 
1958-1959 in the following institutions: East (12): Boston College; 
Boston University; Brown University; Catholic University of America; 
Columbia University; Cornell University; Georgetown University; Har- 
vard University; New York University; University of Pennsylvania; 
Pennsylvania State University; and Rennselaer Polytechnic Institute. 
South (3): University of Oklahoma; University of South Carolina; and 



230 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

University of Tennessee. Midwest (8): University of Chicago; Indiana 
University; University of Kansas; University of Michigan; University of 
Minnesota; Ohio State University; University of Wisconsin; and Western 
Reserve University. West (2): University of California (Berkeley); and 
University of Oregon. 



APPENDIX J 

A special questionnaire on training for the master's degree in 
history was completed by history departments in 87 colleges that 
in 1958-1959 did not offer the Ph.D. degree in history. Informa- 
tion thus received supplemented that collected on the master's 
degree in history from the 77 Ph.D. -training departments (Ap- 
pendix F). The following colleges are represented in our sample 
of institutions granting the master's degree in history: 

EAST (27) 

Connecticut: Connecticut College; St. Joseph College. District of 
Columbia: Trinity College; District of Columbia Teachers College. 
Delaware: University of Delaware. Massachusetts: Amherst College; Uni- 
versity of Massachusetts. New Hampshire: University of New Hampshire; 
New York: Canisius College of Buffalo; Brooklyn College; Colgate Uni- 
versity; College of Saint Rose; Hunter College; Hobart College; Long 
Island University; Mount St. Joseph Teachers College; Nazareth College 
of Rochester; St. Bona venture University; Sarah Lawrence College. Penn- 
sylvania: Bucknell University; Haverford College; Swarthmore College; 
Temple University; University of Scranton. Rhode Island: University of 
Rhode Island. Vermont: University of Vermont. West Virginia: Marshall 
College. 

SOUTH (23) 

Alabama: Auburn University. Arkansas: Henderson State Teachers 
College. Florida: Stetson University; University of Miami. Georgia: At- 
lanta University. Kentucky: University of Louisville. Mississippi: Missis- 



APPENDIXES 231 

sippi Southern College. North Carolina: North Carolina College at Dur- 
ham. Oklahoma: Oklahoma State University. Tennessee: Tennessee Agri- 
cultural and Industrial State University; Memphis State University. Texas: 
Baylor University; North Texas State College; Southern Methodist Uni- 
versity; Stephen F. Austin State College; Sul Ross State College; Texas 
Christian University; Texas College of Arts and Industries; Texas Western 
College; University of Houston; West Texas State College. Virginia: 
College of William and Mary; University of Richmond. 

MIDWEST (16) 

Illinois: Roosevelt University. Indiana: Indiana State Teachers College. 
Iowa: Drake University. Kansas: Fort Hays Kansas State College; Kansas 
State University of Agriculture and Applied Science; Kansas State 
Teachers College of Emporia; University of Wichita. Michigan: Uni- 
versity of Detroit. Missouri: Lincoln University. Nebraska: Creighton 
University; University of Omaha. Ohio: Kent State University; Miami 
University; Ohio University; Ohio Wesleyan University; University of 
Akron. 

WEST (21) 

Arizona: Arizona State College (Tempe) ; University of Arizona. Cali- 
fornia: Fresno State College; Mills College; Occidental College; Pacific 
Union College; Sacramento State College; San Francisco College for 
Women; San Jose State College; University of Santa Clara. Colorado: 
Colorado College; Colorado State University; University of Denver. Idaho: 
University of Idaho. Montana: Montana State University. Nevada: Uni- 
versity of Nevada. New Mexico: New Mexico State University. Oregon: 
University of Portland. Washington: Gonzaga University. Wyoming: 
University of Wyoming. Hawaii: University of Hawaii. 



APPENDIX K 

In November, 1958, a questionnaire was distributed to the 
editors of six historical journals and the directors of eight university 
presses. This questionnaire solicited the impressions of training for 



232 THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 

research and writing in Ph.D. programs in history that these 
editors and directors may have formed from their examination of 
manuscripts prepared by many new Ph.D.s in history. 

Editors of all six journals responded: American Historical Review, 
Journal of Modern History, Mississippi Valley Historical Revieiv, 
Pacific Historical Review, Speculum, and the William and Mary 
Quarterly. 

Directors of four university presses completed questionnaires: 
Harvard University Press, University of Kentucky Press, Uni- 
versity of Oklahoma Press, and the Princeton University Press. 



INDEX 



Acceleration needed in Ph.D. training, American Medical Association, Council 



176-188, 193-199, 203-205 
(See also Ph.D. training, duration) 
Accrediting associations, 104 
Acton, Lord, 36 
Adams, Herbert Baxter, 16, 29 
Admission policies (see Graduate stu- 
dents; Master's training; Ph.D. 

training) 
African history, 31, 32, 76-77, 123 
Agriculture (as discipline) , 49 
AGS (Association of Graduate 

Schools), 102 
Air Force Academy, 63 
Alabama, University of, 43, 104, 112, 

120 
Albion, Robert G., 146 
Allegheny College, 43 
Allen, Paul M., viii 
Alpert, Harry, 103 
American Association of Colleges for 

Teacher Education, viii 
American Bar Association, 54 
American civilization (see United 

States) 
American colonies, history, 57 
American Historical Association, vii, 1, 

73, 165, 174-175, 201 
(See also Committee on Graduate 
Education in History) 
American Historical Review, 175 
American history (see United States) 



on Medical Education and Hospi- 
tals of, 167 

American Slavic and East European Re- 
view, 175 

American University, 112, 113, 119 

Amherst College, 43, 63, 77 

Ancient history, 31, 32, 74-78, 118- 
125 

Anthropology, 40, 144, 150 

Antioch College, 80 

Arizona, University of, 111 

Arkansas, University of, 43, 112 

Art illustrations, 80 

Asian history, 31, 32, 74-77, 119-125, 
212 
(See also Far Eastern, Indian, and 
Near Eastern history; Non- 
Western areas) 

Association of American Universities, 
106, 138 

Association of Graduate Schools 

(AGS) , proposals of Committee 
on Policies in Graduate Education 
of, 102 

Association of Medical Colleges, 54 

Augustana College, 43 

Bachelor's degrees, 19, 21, 66 

(See also Undergraduate studies) 
Barzun, Jacques, v, 56, 88, 169 
Baylor University, 43 



233 



234 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



Becker, Carl, 2, 5 

Berelson, Bernard, viii, 23, 26, 34, 44, 

53, 56, 67, 106, 138, 149, 151, 

173, 176, 179, 180 
Biological sciences (as disciplines), 54 
Birmingham-Southern College, 43 
Black, C. E., 136 
Bonn Republic, 186 
Boston College, 43, 112, 119 
Boston University, 43, 112, 113, 119 
Botany (as discipline), 50 
Bowdoin College, 43 
Bowen, Clarence, 16 
Brandeis University, 113 
Breadth (see Master's training; Ph.D. 

training; Undergraduate studies) 
British history, 30-33, 3 5, 74-78, 118— 

125 
Brogan, A. P., 103 
Brooklyn College, 43 
Brown University, 43, 99, 112, 113, 

119, 156, 157 
Bryn Mawr College, 43, 112, 113, 119 
Budgets for library purchases, 136-137 
Buffalo, University of, 112, 113, 119 
Butler University, 43 
Byrnes, Robert, 136 



California, University of, Berkeley, 43, 
47,78, 112-114, 122, 154, 193 3 
194, 199 
Los Angeles, 43, 112, 113, 122 

Calvinism, 57 

Caplow, Theodore, 132, 133 

Career aims (see Graduate students) 

Carleton College, 43 

Carman, Harry J., 64 

Carmichael, Oliver C, 103-104 

Carnegie Corporation, vii, 1 

Carnegie Foundation for the Advance- 
ment of Teaching, 103 

Carnegie Institute of Technology, 80 

Cartwright, W. H., 99 

Catholic University, 43, 112, 113, 119 

Catholics as history Ph.D.s, 42, 44 

CCNY, 43 



Central Missouri State College, 43 
Chairmen of departments (see College 

faculties; Ph.D. programs) 
Chase, John L., viii, 48 
Chemistry (as discipline), 48, 50, 173, 

174 
Chicago, University of, 43, 47, 1 12— 

114, 121, 153, 155, 229 
Cincinnati, University of, 43, 112, 113 
City College, New York, 43 
Claremont Graduate School, 78, 112, 

113, 192 
Clark University, 43, 112, 119, 156 
Classes, size, 33, 130, 131 
Classics, historical, 8, 84 
Cognate studies (see Master's training; 
Ph.D. training; Undergraduate 
studies) 
Colgate University, 43, 63, 99 
College executives, consultation for this 
study, 221-224 
opinions, 61-65, 104-105, 163-185 
College faculties, consultation for this 
study, 213-220 
degree qualifications, 22, 64-66 
opinions, 31-33, 61, 62, 65, 71, 93, 

163-185 
publication, 70-71 
in recruiting students, 5 5—56 
research, 70-71 
teaching loads, 70—72, 84 
travel, 67 
(See also Colleges) 
College teaching as career aim, 53-54 
Colleges, courses, 73-79, 84-8 5 
enrollments, 74 

forms of instruction, 79-81, 84-8 5 
graduation requirements, 73 
history instruction, 61-8 5 

fields taught, 73-78 
leaves of absence, 72 
libraries, 67-68 
Master's training, 86-107 
size of classes, 70 
teaching loads, 68-72, 211-212 
Colorado, University of, 43, 112, 113, 
122 



INDEX 



235 



Columbia University, 43, 47, 87, 111— 

114, 119, 178, 180 
Teachers College, 3 
Committee of Fifteen, 165, 169 
Committee on Graduate Education in 
History, American Historical 
Association, recommendations, 
200-212 

summarized, 4—14 
Committees, service on, 72, 131, 211 
Comprehensive examinations (see Ph.D. 

training; Undergraduate studies) 
Conant, James B., 4 
Concordia Seminary, 43 
Constitutional history, 76,77, 123, 169 
Cornell University, 43, 79, 112, 113, 

119, 154 
Course credits and requirements (see 

Master's training; Ph.D. training; 

Undergraduate studies) 
Creighton University, 43 
Cultural history, 74-77, 123, 124 
Curti, Merle, 186 

Dartmouth College, 43 

Davidson College, 43 

Debts of history graduate students, 5 1— 
52 

Delaware, University of, 111 

Demand for Ph.D.s (see Ph.D. train- 
ing; Ph.D.s) 

Denver, University of, 43 

DePauw University, 43 

Dickinson College, 43, 58 

Dilthey, Wilhelm, 144«. 

Diplomatic history, 76, 77, 122-124 

Directed reading courses (see Master's 
training; Ph.D. training; Under- 
graduate studies) 

Discussion sections (see Master's train- 
ing; Ph.D. training; Undergradu- 
ate studies) 

Dissertation (see Ph.D. training) 

District of Columbia, 51 

Doctorate in teaching discouraged, 201 

Dramatic arts (as discipline), 49, 158 

Dropsie College, 112 



Duke University, 43, 99, 122, 113, 120, 

190-191 
Durant, Will, 52 

Duration of training (see Master's 
training; Ph.D. training) 



Earlham College, 43 
East (United States region), college 
faculties, 66 
definition, 27n. 
faculty travel, 118 
history, enrollments, 70, 126 

types taught, 76-78 
library resources, 136-137 
master's training, 89, 94-96 
Ph.D. training, 27-29, 114, 115, 177 
publication of faculties, 117 
teaching loads, 129-131 
undergraduate majors, 126 
East Carolina College, 63 
Eastern European history, 28, 30-32, 

41, 74-78, 118-125, 135-136 
Economic history, 74-77, 123, 124 
Economics (as discipline), 6, 19, 20, 

40, 50,93, 144, 150, 160, 179 
Editors, consultation for this study, 
231-232 
recommendations, 171—174 
Education (as discipline), 18, 19, 46, 

49,96,99, 111, 144, 158, 165 
Educational television, 34, 79, 81 
Elder, J. P., 106 
Emory University, 43, 112, 113, 120, 

197 
Engineering (as discipline), 54 
England, 57 
English (as discipline), 18, 19, 38, 49- 

51, 150, 158, 160, 173, 174, 179 
English history (see British history) 
Enrollment trends (see Colleges; Ph.D. 

training) 
European history, 29-31, 78, 82 
(See also Medieval history; Modern 
European history) 
European History Section, Southern 
Historical Association, 175 



236 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



Examinations (see Master's training; 
Ph.D. training; Undergraduate 
studies) 
Expansion, discouraged, in Ph.D. pro- 
grams, 13 8-140, 201 
encouraged, in Ph.D. training (see 
Ph.D. training) 

Faculties (see College faculties; Junior 

colleges; Ph.D. programs) 
Families, prolongation of training by, 

12 
Far Eastern history, 32, 74-78, 118- 
125 
(See also Asian history; Non-West- 
ern areas) 
Fellowships (see Ph.D. training, finan- 
cing) 
Field requirements (see Master's train- 
ing; Ph.D. training; Undergradu- 
ate studies) 
Field trips, 80 
Film, 208 
Financial needs (see Graduate students; 

Ph.D. training) 
Fine, Benjamin, 73 
Florida, University of, 43, 112, 120 
Florida State University, 111 
Folger, John K., viii 
Fordham University, 43, 112, 113, 119 
Foreign languages, as discipline, 178 
in master's training, 89, 91, 92, 96 
in Ph.D. training, 15 3, 154, 15 8, 

159, 193, 194, 202 
in undergraduate study, 40-41, 84 
Foreign students, 207 
Forestry (as discipline), 49 
France, 29, 172, 186 
Franklin and Marshall College, 43 
French (as discipline), 153, 195 
Fulbright Fellowships, 47 
Fund for the Advancement of Educa- 
tion, 103-104 

General education courses, 76, 77 
(See also Western civilization) 



General examinations (see Ph.D. train- 
ing) 
George Peabody College, 112, 120 
George Washington University, 43, 

112, 113, 119 
Georgetown University, 43, 112, 113, 

119 
Georgia, University of, 43, 112, 120 
German (as discipline), 153, 195 
Germany, 57, 186 
Gettysburg College, 43 
"G.I. Bill," 19 
Gonzaga University, 43 
Gordon, A. R., 88, 106 
Grade requirements (see Master's train- 
ing; Ph.D. training) 
Graduate Record Examination (GRE), 

38-39, 202 
Graduate students, ability, 37—41 
academic origins, 41—43 
admission, 38, 39, 5 5, 56, 181, 198, 

200-202 
career aims, 53, 54, 163 
consultation for this study, 229-230 
faculty neglect, 13 3—134 
financing, 41, 45-53, 59, 127, 188, 

200-201 
guidance, 113-134, 181-184, 198 
numbers, 23-25, 29, 36, 37 
opinions, 12, 13, 31-3 3, 151, 162, 

163, 169 
progress delayed by work, 50, 51 
recruiting, 5, 6, 3 5, 54-59, 180, 186, 

200-201 
screening, 88-89, 154-15 5, 159, 183, 

194-198, 201-202 
social origins and characteristics, 42- 

46 
undergraduate records, 37—41 
Graduate study (see Master's training; 

Ph.D. training) 
Graduation requirements, colleges, 73 
GRE, 38-39, 202 
Grinnell College, 43 
Guidance (see Graduate students; Mas- 
ter's training; Ph.D. training) 



INDEX 



237 



Hamilton College, 43 

Harrington, Fred Harvey, v 

Harvard Guide to Historical Literature, 
7 

Harvard University, 43, 47, 58, 99 , 
111-114, 119, 153, 157, 178, 189, 
193 

Haverford College, 43 

Hesseltine, William B., 173 

High schools, 5 5, 5 8 

Hiram College, 43 

Historian, The, 175 

Historians, number, per college, 65 
per Ph.D. training program, 114 

Historiography, 76-78, 80, 122-125, 
145, 158, 198,202,204, 206 

History (as discipline), nature, 1-14, 
36 

History Department Newsletter (Har- 
vard), 146 

Hobart and William Smith Colleges, 43 

Hobbs, M. E., 88, 106 

Holt, W. Stall, 75 

Honors work (see Undergraduate stud- 
ies) 

Howard University, 43 

Hubbard, Richard B., 91 

Humanities (as disciplines), 40, 41, 54, 
161 

Hunter College, 43, 63 



Idaho, University of, 111 

Illinois, University of, 43, 112, 113, 
121 

Independent study as form of instruc- 
tion, 79, 81, 84, 85 

Indian history, 76, 77, 123 

(See also Asian history; Non-West- 
ern areas) 

Indiana, 77 

Indiana Central College, 43 

Indiana University, 43, 112, 113, 121, 
191-192 

Individual instruction, 127 

Intellectual history, 74-77, 123, 124 



Intercollegiate Program of Graduate 
Studies, 192 

Interdisciplinary courses, 76, 77, 123, 
192 

Interviews, need in appointing teach- 
ers, 209 

Iowa, State University of, 43, 112, 113, 
121, 156 

Iowa State Teachers College, 43 

Jameson, John F., 16, 185 

Jernegan, Marcus W., 17, 132, 157, 173 

Jews, Ph.D.s earned by, 42 

Johns Hopkins University, 16, 43, 99, 

112-144, 119 
Journal of Central European Affairs, 

175 
Journal of Modern History, 175 
Journal of Southern History, 175 
Junior colleges, consultation for this 

study, 220-221 
degree qualifications of faculty, 83 
history instruction, 65-66, 75 

Kansas, University of, 43, 112, 113, 

121 
Kaplan, Louis, 173 
Keeney, Barnaby, 169 
Kemp, Mrs. James B., vii 
Keniston, Hayward, 164, 185 
Kentucky, University of, 43, 112, 120 
Kirkland, Edward C, v 
Kittredge, George Lyman, 156 
Knox College, 43 
Krieger, Leonard, v, 225 
Ktsanes, Virginia, vii 

Langer, William L., 144«. 

Large institutions, origins of most his- 
tory graduate students, 42, 43 

Latin- American history, 30-33, 35, 74— 
78, 118-125 

Law students, 44 

Leaves of absence, 72, 134, 174, 212 • 

Lecky, William E. H., 14 






238 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



Lecture courses, 79, 81, 84, 127, 145, 

146, 158, 181, 208 
Lehigh University, 112, 119 
Levels of instruction, 121-123 
Library resources, in colleges, 67-68, 84 
in Ph.D. programs, 47, 108, 13 5- 
137, 157, 201-202, 212 
Literature (as discipline), 93, 144 
Loads, teaching (see College faculties; 

Ph.D. programs) 
Loan-scholarships suggestion, 52-53, 59 
Loans to graduate students, 51-53, 200 
Louisiana State University, 43, 112, 

120 
Loyola University (Illinois), 43, 90, 

112, 121 
Lumiansky, R. M., 99 
Lyons, William P., 90 

M.A. degree, history (see Master's 

training) 
M.A.T. degree, 96-101 
M.Ed, degree, 101 

M.S. degree, history (see Master's train- 
ing) 
McGee, Reece J., 132, 133 
McGill University, 113 
McGrath, Earl J., 3, 4 
Maine, University of, 43 
Majors, history (see Undergraduate 

studies) 
Manhattan College, 43 
Married graduate students, 12, 44 
Marxism, 57 

Maryland, Unversity of, 12, 119 
Mason, Henry L., 170 
Massachusetts, University of, 78, 99 
Master of Arts in Teaching (M.A.T.) 

degree, 96-101 
Master's degree, history, 19, 86-107, 
181 

two types, 101 

uses, 33, 65-66, 97, 98, 100 
Master's training, 12, 19, 21, 33, 86- 

107, 203 
admission, 88, 105 
breadth, 92-94 



Master's training, cognate studies, 93 „ 
96 
duration, 94-95, 106 
examinations, 94, 96, 105, 154 
foreign languages, 89, 91, 92, 96, 

105 
growth, 21, 86-87 
prevalence, 86, 87 
proposed reforms, 97-107 
regional variations, 89, 92, 94-96 
requirements, course, 92, 93, 96, 106 
credit hours, 89 
grade, 88, 89, 96, 105 
residence, 89, 105 
screening of students, 88—89 
seminar courses, 80—81, 84—85 
thesis, 12, 89-91, 96, 105, 106, 151, 
175, 181, 183, 203 
Mathematics (as discipline), 48, 150 
Maul, Ray C, 22n. 
Medicine as field of study, 44, 54, 5 5 
Medieval history, 30-32, 74-77, 118— 

125 
Methodology, historical, 76-78, 84, 

122, 123, 145 
Methods of teaching, 79-8 1 
Miami University, 43 
Michigan, University of, 43, 112, 113,, 

121, 156, 157, 196, 197 
Michigan State University, 43, 112, 

121 
Midwest (United States region), col- 
lege faculties, 66 
definition, 27-2 8n. 
faculty travel, 118 
history enrollments, 70, 126 
library resources, 136, 137 
master's training, 89, 92, 94, 95 
publication of faculties, 117 
teaching loads, 129-131 
types of history taught, 75, 76 
undergraduate history majors, 126 
Military history, 74-77, 123 
Millsaps College, 43 
Minnesota, University of, 43, 112, 113, 

121 
Mississippi, University of, 43, 111 



INDEX 



239 



Mississippi State University, 111 

Mississippi Valley Historical Associa- 
tion, 73, 175 

Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 
175 

Missouri, University of, 43, 112, 113, 
121 

Mitchell, Robert, vii 

Modern European history, 3 0-3 3 , 74- 
77, 118-125, 135, 143, 144 

Morningside College, 43 

Morrison, Donald, 69 

Mount Holyoke College, 43, 77, 99 

Moving pictures, 80 

Musical recordings, 80 

National Council for the Social Studies, 

73 
National Defense Educational Act Fel- 
lowships (NDEA), 16, 3 5, 47, 48, 

111 
National Education Association 

(NEA), 23, 26, 34 
National Merit Scholarships, 68 
National Opinion Research Center 

(NORC), viii, 44, 45, 48-50, 53, 

54, 180, 229 
National Science Foundation, 45 
Natural sciences (as disciplines), 45, 

48-50, 161, 202 
Nazism, 57 

NDEA, 16, 35,47, 48, 111 
NEA, 23, 26, 34 
Near Eastern history, 74-77, 123 

(See also Asian history) 
Nebraska, University of, 43, 112, 121 
Negroes, Ph.D.s earned by, 42 
Nevins, Allan, 172 
New Deal, 57 
New England, 44 
New Mexico, University of, 43, 112, 

113, 122 
New York University, 43, 112, 119 
Non-Western areas, 74-78, 84 
NOPX, 45,48-50, 161,202 
North Carolina, University of, 43, 112, 

113, 120, 128, 136»., 156 



North Dakota, University of, 112, 122 
North Texas State University, 43 
Northeast Missouri State Teachers Col- 
lege, 43 
Northwestern University, 43, 112, 113, 

121, 153 

Notre Dame, University of, 43, 112, 

113, 121, 151 
NYU, 43, 112, 119 

Oberlin College, 43 

Occidental College, 43, 64, 78, 111, 

192 
Office of Education, viii, 48, 158 
Ohio State University, 43, 112, 113, 

121 
Ohio Wesley an University, 43 
Oklahoma, University of, 43, 112, 113, 

120, 128 
Oregon, University of, 43, 103, 112, 

122, 128 

Orientals, Ph.D.s earned by, 42 

Pacific Coast Branch, American Histor- 
ical Association, 175 

Pacific Historical Review, 175 

Paperback booklets, 80 

Parents of history graduate students, 
44-46, 49, 5 5 

Parsons College, 72 

Pennsylvania, University of, 43, 112, 
113, 119, 128 

Pennsylvania State University, 43, 112, 
119 

Perkins, Dexter, v, 85, 161, 165, 167, 
170, 221, 224-225 
summary of views, 1—14 

Ph.D. candidates (see Graduate stu- 
dents; Ph.D. training) 

Ph.D. programs, history, 1-14, 108- 
140,200-212 
capacities for expansion, 139-140 
consultation for this study, 224- 

227 
courses, 121-126 
faculty appointments, 116-117, 
128 






240 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



Ph.D. programs, history, faculty de- 
gree qualifications, 116—117 
faculty research and publication, 

117, 128, 132-135 
faculty travel, 117-118 
growth, 109-111 
increase discouraged, 136-140, 

201 
leaves of absence, 134 
levels of instruction, 121-123 
library resources, 47, 108, 13 5— 

137, 157, 201-202 
minimum assets, 13 8, 201-202 
opinions of faculties, 31—33, 146— 

185 
promotions, 132-133 
recruiting, 54—59 
size, 109-116 
specialized teaching, 117 
teaching loads and conditions, 

127-137, 211-212 
undergraduate major, 126 
Ph.D. training, general, growth, 15-23, 
36 
history, 1-14, 141-159, 200-212 
ability of students, 37-41 
acceleration needed, 3 5, 176-188, 

193-199, 203-207 
admission, 37-41, 88, 181, 193- 

199, 200-202, 204 
breadth, 1-2, 7, 8, 84, 142-144, 

161, 162, 169-171, 186, 187, 

205-207 
cognate studies, 6, 144, 15 3, 158, 

170, 171, 195, 196, 205 
course credits, 184, 204-205 
course loads, 142 
courses, 122, 127, 142, 158, 181, 

193-199, 206-207 
criticism, 1-14, 160-187 
delay by student work, 179 
directed readings, 127, 145, 148, 

194, 206-207 
dissertation, 12, 47, 145, 148-152, 

157-158, 169, 173, 180, 181, 

183, 185, 193-199, 204-205, 

207 



Ph.D. training, history, duration, 11— 

12, 16, 176-187, 203-205 
examinations, 7-8, 152-159, 181, 

184, 193, 194, 196-198, 205 
field requirements, 142-144, 158, 

181, 184, 193-199, 205, 206 
fields of specialization, 28-31, 3 5, 
118-126 

variations, 28 
financing, 16, 26, 3 5, 39, 45-53, 

58-60, 108, 111, 113, 114, 116, 

179-180, 188, 200-202, 204 
foreign languages, 15 3-154, 158, 

159, 181, 184, 193-198, 202, 

204, 206 
foreign students, 207 
forms of instruction, 145-152 
growth, 17-22, 31-33, 109-111 
guidance of students, 133, 134, 

181-184, 198,206 
historiography, 145, 158, 198, 

204, 206 
honors work, 127 
independent study, 195, 198, 205 
individual instruction, 127 
interdisciplinary seminars, 192 
lecture courses, 15 8, 181, 193- 

199, 206-207 
need for deadlines, 181 
neglect of students, 133-134 
philosophies of history, 8, 145, 

158, 171 
projected needs, 23-27, 31-33, 

200-202 
publication emphasized, 171—175 
reading, 148-149 
recruiting, 5, 6, 3 5, 54-59, 180, 

186, 200-201 
regional variations, 27-28, 1 10— 

137, 177-179, 185 
research training, 3, 4, 59, 65, 

127, 141, 145-148, 161, 171- 

176, 204, 206, 208 
residence requirements, 141 
screening of students, 88-89, 1 54— 

155, 159, 183, 193-199,201- 

202 



INDEX 



241 



Ph.D. training, history, seminars, 80— 
81, 84-85, 90, 127, 146-148, 
151, 152, 158, 183, 193-199, 
203, 204 
specialization, 142-144, 169-171, 

186, 187, 205-207, 211 
teacher training, 4-5, 8-11, 50, 
59, 64, 127, 141, 145, 159-168, 
186, 188-193, 198-199, 208- 
210 
travel, 47, 13 5 
tutorials, 127, 206 
women in, 20, 42 
writing training, 171-173, 187, 

206 
(See also Graduate students; Ph.D. 
programs) 
Ph.D.s, history, 15 

in colleges, 21, 61, 66, 83 
in junior colleges, 66, 83 
need for more, 31-32 
of 195 8, age when degree awarded, 
44, 203 
consultation for this study, 228- 

229 
opinions, 52, 61, 146-185 
in Ph.D. training departments, 114 
social characteristics, 42, 44-46 
Philosophies of history, study needed, 8, 
76-77, 84, 123-125, 145, 158, 
171 
Philosophy (as discipline), 5 0, 144, 

150, 173, 174, 202 
Physical sciences (as disciplines), 54 
Physics (as discipline), 38, 48, 50, 173 
Pierson, G. W., lS7n. 
Pittsburgh, University of, 43, 59, 112, 

113, 119 
Pittsburgh Plan, 59 

Placement officers, consultation for this 
study, 227-228 
estimate of supply and demand by, 
24 
Political science (as discipline), 19, 20, 
49, 50, 54, 93, 144, 150, 160, 170, 
178, 179 
Pomona College, 43 



Postdoctoral study, 174 
Preliminary examination (see Ph.D. 

training) 
Preparation for teaching (see Ph.D. 

training) 
Prestige as factor in selection of Ph.D. 

program, 108 
Prestigious institutions, 47, 114 
Princeton University, 43, 47, 102, 104, 

112-114, 119, 151-152, 155, 156, 

189-190, 193, 198-199 
Prizes for teaching excellence, 212 
Procedures in this study, 213-232 
Professional associations, 212 
Prolonged studies (see Ph.D. training) 
Promotion criteria, 132-133, 203, 212 
Protestants, Ph.D.s earned by, 42, 44 
Psychology (as discipline), 38, 41, 49, 

93, 144, 150 
Publication, emphasis on, 11, 70-72, 

117, 128, 132-133, 171-175, 210 
Pusey, Nathan D., 13 5w. 
"Putz's Ancient History," 79 

Qualifying examinations (see Master's 
training; Ph.D. training) 

Radcliffe College (see Harvard Univer- 
sity) 

Ranke, Leopold von, 142 

Recent history, 124 

Recommendations, Committee on 

Graduate Education, AHA, 200- 
212 

Recordings, musical, 80 

Recruiting (see Graduate students; 
Ph.D. training) 

Redlands, University of, 78, 192 

Reed College, 42, 43, 80 

Regional variations, 27—29 
(See also specific regions) 

Religious history, 76-77, 123, 144 

Research (see College faculties; Ph.D. 
programs; Ph.D. training) 

Research scholarship, importance, 65, ■ 
210, 212 

Reserve Officers Training Corps, 52 






242 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



Residence requirements, 89, 105, 141 
Rice University, 43, 112, 120 
Richmond, University of, 43 
Rochester, University of, 43, 112, 113, 

119, 190, 199 
Roland, Mrs. Charles P., vii 
Roman Empire, 57 
Rosenhaupt, Hans, 180 
ROTC, 52 
Ruml, Beardsley, 69 
Russian history (see Eastern European 

history) 
Russian language, 153 
Rutgers University, 43, 112, 113, 119 



Sabbaticals, 72, 134, 174, 212 

Saint John's University, 43, 112, 119 

Saint Louis University, 43, 112, 113, 
121 

Saint Olaf College, 43 

Salaries, need for higher, 59, 60, 84, 
212 

San Jose State College, 43 

Scholarships (see Ph.D. training, financ- 
ing) 

Science, history of, 76, 77, 123, 124 

Sciences (as disciplines), 38, 39, 54, 55 

Screening of students (see Ph.D. train- 
ing) 

Secretarial assistance, 72, 212 

Seminar courses (see Master's training; 
Ph.D. training; Undergraduate 
training) 

SHA, 175 

Shafer, Boyd C, v, 60, 224-225 

Sibley, Elbridge, 45, 139, 178 

Size, history classes, 68-72, 74, 127- 
137 

Slavic history (see Eastern European 
history) 

Slavic Review, 175 

Slide projectors, 80 

Smith College, 43, 78 

Snell, John L., v, vii, 12, 224-225 

Snell, Maxine P., vii 

Social history, 76, 77, 123, 124 



Social sciences (as disciplines), 39-41, 

45, 48-50, 54, 82, 96, 180, 202 
Sociology (as discipline), 19, 20, 50, 

87, 144, 150, 160, 179 
South (United States region), college 
faculties, 66 
definition of, 27«. 
faculty travel, 118 
history of, 28 

history enrollments, 70, 126 
library resources, 136-137 
master's training, 89, 94—9 5 
Ph.D. training, 27-29, 110, 111, 

114, 115, 127, 177-179, 185 
publication by faculties, 117 
teaching loads, 129-131 
types of history taught, 75-76 
undergraduate majors, 126 
South Carolina, University of, 43, 112, 

113, 120 
South Dakota, State University of, 64 
Southern California, University of, 43, 

112, 122 
Southern Historical Association 

(SHA), 175 
Southern Illinois University, 43, 63 
Southern Methodist University, 43 
Southern Regional Education Board, 

viii, 50, 5 3 
Southwest Missouri State College, 43 
Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, 

175 
Soviet Union, 99, 153 «., 186 
Spaeth, Joe, vii 

Specialization (see College faculties; 
Master's training; Ph.D. training; 
Undergraduate studies) 
Standardization problems, master's de- 
gree, 97-107 
Standards in history graduate study, 

37-41 
Stanford University, 43, 112, 113, 122, 

153, 193-195 
State history, 76, 77, 123 
Stipends (see Ph.D. training, financ- 
ing) 
Student ratings of teachers, 64, 128 



INDEX 



243 



Summer study, stipends needed, 47 

Supervised teaching, 9—11, 64, 128, 
165, 189, 190, 208-210 

Survey courses, 76, 77, 93 

(See also Modern European history; 
United States; Western civiliza- 
tion) 

Swarthmore College, 42, 43 

Syracuse University, 43, 112, 113, 119 

Tape recorders, 208 

Taylor, George V., 13 5 

Teacher training, experiments, 188- 

193, 198-199 
Teachers, history, career aim of gradu- 
ate students, 53-56 
characteristics desired, 56-57, 62- 
63 
Teaching assistantships, 50 
Teaching doctorate discouragement, 

201 
Teaching excellence, discovering, fos- 
tering, and rewarding, 209-212 
Teaching loads (see College faculties; 

Ph.D. programs) 
Television, 34, 79, 81 
Temple University, 43, 63 
Tennessee, University of, 111 
Term papers, 80 
Texas, University of, 43, 103, 112, 

113, 120, 197 
Texas Technological College, 112, 120 
Thesis, for master's degree, 12, 89-91, 
96, 105, 106, 151, 175, 181, 183, 
203 
for Ph.D. degree (dissertation), 12, 
47, 145, 148-152, 157-158, 
169, 173, 180, 181, 183, 185, 
193-199, 204-205, 207 
for undergraduate honors, 80—81 
Thompson, John M., 136 
Tightened programs, 188, 193-199 
Tolstoy, Leo, 57 

Topical approach, in college history 
courses, 75-77 
in Ph.D. programs, 123-126 
Toronto, University of, 113 



Travel, by college faculties, 67 

for dissertation research, 47, 135 

faculty need for, 212 

financial problems, 47, 135 

by Ph.D. -training faculties, 117, 118 
Tufts University, 112, 113, 119, 156 
Tulane University, v, vii, 43, 52, 59, 

99, 112, 113, 120, 156, 192, 196 
Turner, Frederick J., 8 
Tutorials (see Ph.D. training; Under- 
graduate studies) 



Undergraduate studies, history, bache- 
lor's degree, 19 

breadth, 40-41, 202 

cognate studies, 40-41, 202 

courses, 39-41, 73-79, 81, 82, 84- 
85, 202 

credit hour requirements, 82, 202 

directed readings, 81, 84 

examinations, 84, 202 

fields of history, 74-77, 81, 82, 
202 

foreign language study, 40-41, 
202 

forms of instruction, 34, 79-81, 
84, 85, 208 

honors theses, 80-81 

in large institutions, 42-43 

majors, 20, 21, 37-41, 5 8, 126 

research training, 39, 40, 83, 202 

in small colleges, 41-43 

specialization, 40-41, 202 

tutorials, 81, 84-85 

writing training, 40-41 
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 

(U.S.S.R.), 99, 153w., 186 
(See also Eastern European history) 
Union College (Nebraska), 43 
United States, history, 29-33, 3 5, 73- 

78, 82, 118-126, 136, 143, 159, 

169 
U.S. Air Force Academy, 63 
U.S. Department of Health, Education, 

and "Welfare, Office of Education, 

viii, 48, 158 



244 



THE EDUCATION OF HISTORIANS IN THE UNITED STATES 



Universities, undergraduate origins of 

most graduate students, 42—43 
Urban history, 125 
Utah, University of, 43, 112, 122 

Vanderbilt University, 43, 99, 112, 

113, 120 
Vassar College, 43 
Vermont, University of, 43 
Vines, Mrs. Kenneth, vii 
Virginia, University of, 43, 112, 113, 

120 

Wabash College, 43 

Wake Forest College, 43 

Walla Walla College, 43 

Washington, University of, 43, 112, 

113, 122, 151, 197-198 
Washington and Lee University, 43 
Washington State University, 112, 122 
Washington University (Saint Louis), 

43, 112 
Wayne State University, 43, 111 
Wellemeyer, Fletcher, 21 
Wellesley College, 43 
Wesleyan University, 43, 80, 99 
West (United States region), college 
faculties, 66 

definition, 28«. 

faculty travel, 118 

history enrollments, 70, 126 

library resources, 136—137 

master's training, 89 

Ph.D. training, 27-29, 110, 111, 
114, 115, 177 

publication of faculies, 117 

teaching loads, 129-131 

types of history taught, 76 

undergraduate majors, 126 



West Germany, 186 

West Virginia University, 43, 112, 119 

Western civilization, history, 74—77, 

123-125 
Western Kentucky State College, 43 
Western Reserve University, 43, 112, 

113, 121 
Wheaton College, 43 
White, Andrew D., 79 
Whitehead, Alfred N., 57 
Whittier College, 78, 192 
William P. Lyons Essay Award, 90 
Williams College, 43 

Wilson, Kenneth M., viii 

Wilson, Logan, 1 3 8 

Wilson, Meredith, 103 

Wisconsin, University of, 43, 47, 112- 

114, 121, 128, 189 

Women, as history undergraduates, 20 
Ph.D.s earned by, 20, 42 
as professional historians, 20 

Woodrow Wilson Fellowships, 16, 3 5, 
39, 41, 47, 48, 59, 114, 116 

Wooster, College of, 43 

Work, prolongation of doctoral train- 
ing by, 12, 50-52, 179 

World history, 74-77, 123-125 

World War II, 18, 82, 110 

Wright, Benjamin, 176 

Writing training, 85, 171-173 

Xavier University, 113 

Yale University, 16, 43, 47, 79, 99, 
112-114, 119, 176, 187w., 193, 
195-196 

Yalta Conference, 57 

Zoology (as discipline), 150 



Date Due 



Due 


Returned 


Due 


Returned 




JAN 28 1911 


























f 


































































































1 






1 






I 












\ 




I 














. 



49300